Re: Performance Reviews

so, a chicken can rate a pig to be more chicken?




Pierre*NEIS*


Lean Agile Coach | Associate


M: +352 / 661 727 867


[email protected]


Luxembourg | Paris | Brussels | Geneva | Beirut


  <https://pierreneis.youcanbook.me/>



*Next Conferences:*




   - June 24-25th, Paris, BAFS, http://www.bafs2015.org/
   - June 29-30th, Geneva, BAFS, http://www.bafs2015.org/
   - Sept 11-13th, London, #play14London, http://london.play14.org/




On 2 June 2015 at 19:35, MJ [email protected] [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <
[email protected]> wrote:


>
>
> Cipson,
>
> Are you saying that performance appraisals are a good thing?  Do you have
> evidence of that?
>
> --mj
> (Michael James)
>
> On Jun 2, 2015, at 5:57 PM, Cipson [email protected] [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>>
>   
>