Re: Performance Reviews

"Yves Hanoulle [email protected] [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT]" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.programming.scrum.general
Message-ID <CAJWRDbqxxm5XZjboDDniDYKz=jQTX=GxZOvQqeCCevWkiqNK7Q@mail.gmail.com>
what advantage does a (article) personal performance bring to you?


I try to understand, because eso far I have not seen one.


y


2015-06-02 18:57 GMT+02:00 Cipson [email protected] [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <
[email protected]>:


>
>
> Win win situation for team and individual.
>
> With my experience, 50% team performance and 50% individual peformacne
> have better balance.
>
> Regards
> Cipson Thomas
>
> [email protected] || +91 8606 55 77 99 (Mobile)
> <http://meninweb.blogspot.com> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/meninweb>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Ron Jeffries [email protected]
> [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Charles,
>>
>> On May 26, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Charles Bradley - Professional Scrum Trainer
>> and Coach [email protected] [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not seeing what you're talking about.  Can you be more specific?
>>
>>
>> Reluctantly, here are some thoughts. Reluctant, because ideally they’d be
>> addressed privately to Jeff, not to this group. But you did ask.
>>
>> In essence the core algorithm of the article comes down to:
>>
>>
>>    1. Employee rates self;
>>    2. Employee and reviewer discuss ratings;
>>    3. Reviewer rates employee;
>>    4. *Employee rating stands.*
>>
>>
>> At this moment the reader is all *WTF, the employee rating stands??*.
>> What follows doesn’t help alleviate the WTF.
>>
>> In particular this section:
>>
>> The higher rating supercedes the lower. If the reviewer gives a 4 and the
>> team gives a 7, it is a 7 and so forth. This review is a form of 360 degree
>> feedback where the review process is designed to surface gross disparities
>> between market perception, customer perception, company perception, team
>> perception, reviewer perception, and individual employee perception of
>> their performance. Gross disparities are rare and should be dealt with on
>> an exception basis.
>>
>> … seems to be saying that there is a team rating. Are we talking about a
>> single employee, rated by their team? If so, there’s something missing
>> above? Are we talking suddenly about how to rate a whole team (which could
>> be a good review idea)? If so, then the first part should have said “Team
>> rates itself”, etc ...
>>
>> The quoted section goes on to refer to a number of “perceptions”: market,
>> customer, company, team, reviewer, individual. (Likely this should have
>> been a new paragraph.) Either way,t the procedure itself only addresses
>> what the reviewer and the individual do. Somehow a whole bunch of people
>> seem to have popped into the equation. Compiler explodes with “undefined
>> term” messages.
>>
>> Naturally, I can *imagine* an answer. the problem is, I can imagine many
>> disparate ones, mostly wrong.
>>
>> One candidate answer is: “either the employee or reviewer may make
>> [un]substantiated claims about the views of other individuals or groups
>> regarding the employee’s performance”. If I guess that, which seems a
>> possibly sensible thing to do, I’m still left with a huge gap in
>> understanding how those claims would be created, used, assessed, or
>> adjudicated. It also puts quite a burden on the other people involved,
>> since in fairness, the employee and the reviewer should both be engaged in
>> getting this information. (Together, one would have hoped, but together
>> isn’t part of this scheme.)
>>
>> Another answer might be “use common sense”, which makes the questioner go
>> away but each questioner goes away with a different answer in his head,
>> since “common sense” is never common and often not sense.
>>
>> Overall, in my opinion, the article leaves too much to the imagination,
>> which means that this advice will be used, if at all, in random unintended
>> ways. The rubber doesn’t meet the road.
>>
>> Ron Jeffries
>> ronjeffries.com

>> If not now, when? -- Rabbi Hillel
>>
>>
>  
>






-- 


Yves Hanoulle
Phone 00 32 467 43 38 32


Skype YvesHanoulle


Blog: www.Hanoulle.be <http://www.hanoulle.be/>


Coaching Question Of the Day: http://twitter.com/Retroflection
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.