When you work at an agency, it isn’t always easy to get an evaluation even made. Everything is winged and many supervisors have no idea how to even write one. The funny thing is that working at a big company with over 1,300 employees doesn’t mean things will be any different. If anything, you find out that it’s just as retarded.
Let’s make this clear, evaluations should be tools for self improvement. You’re supposed to see areas of opportunity, address them and get better in those areas for the benefit of all parts involved. But in case you hadn’t noticed, evaluations are rarely used to truthfully help someone improve. Rather, they become tools to justify not giving you a raise and little more than that.
If anything can be set in stone about me it’s that I’m a great listener, even for things that aren’t necessarily meant for my ears, but that some people feel the need to share with me. At every tenure, in every agency and every company I’ve worked at, I’ve enjoyed lovely nuggets of truth that would do wonders for company morale. I just don’t share the information because it’s not my place to do so and I’ve been stabbed in the back enough to know not to spill the beans on sensitive information.
“Like what?” you may ask. Well what would you say if were to tell you that HR personnel are sometimes given specific instructions to tell all managers and supervisors to not give scores above a specific grade? Sounds a bit nasty, but I’ve heard stuff like that, which brings me to the point of this post: evaluations are horseshit.
When it comes to judging panels in a contest, you tally all the scores, divide them by the total number of judges and get an average. Rules may vary and maybe even the top and lowest scores are dropped. But the point is that in such an instance, you get to a two decimal point score because there is more than one person giving the evaluation. If this is the case, then why are evaluations made by one person including scores with two decimal points? The reason is simple, and I repeat from the paragraph above: to justify not giving you a raise. To make it clearer, I’ve seen a variety of scoring criteria used to evaluate me but one that was supremely curious was a best out of 5 score where I actually got a 3.63 out of 5. I was a bit confused at the score and was reassured that it meant that I was doing a spectacular job. So the question had to asked, if it were that spectacular, then why didn’t I get a 4 something? Luckily someone from HR was kind enough to give me the real answer before resigning. Quite simply, that there was no way you could get a 4, because there had been instructions given and to boot… a 5? Funny little boy, a 5 is only for VPs and Senior Management while 4s were saved for middle management. Oh and let’s not even ponder on what’s the difference between a 3.63 and a 3.64.
What this means is that regardless of your real performance, a company will justify giving you the minimum raise in pretty much any way they can, unless you get yourself a sugar momma or kiss the right ass. So if you were already fed up with the whole evaluation process in your company, there’s a little more info so you can get your hatred straight while you figure out how long you will insist on holding on to your shitty job.
Cheers
0 comments:
Post a Comment