How to give feedback regarding company's performance review method?
May 5, 2023 11:41 AM Subscribe
I recently went through my first performance review with a company I joined a year ago. I was shocked and disappointed with the rating I received. On further consideration of the method of review, I've come to think that the entire method of review is either very flawed or deliberately set up to induce lower ratings, but I'm not sure what to do with this - what, if any, feedback would be wise to share with my manager? Or should I keep quiet?
Background context:
The company is a fairly large and established one, and still growing quickly. However, recent earnings reports have been a disappointment to shareholders and our stock value has taken a significant hit. Leadership had begun company-wide discussions about cutting costs and reducing spending right before performance reviews began.
The performance review method:
The current rating system is brand new to the company for this year. It's premised on a 4 point scale. Ratings 1-2 are described as varying degrees of "not meeting expectations," and ratings 3-4 are described as varying degrees of "exceeding expectations." There is no option for management to describe an employee who meets expectations, i.e. doing their job perfectly well, no more and no less. It should also be mentioned that you must receive a 3-4 rating in order to be eligible for a raise or promotion.
My self-evaluation:
I struggle to advocate for myself and, like many women in professional occupations, suffer from imposter syndrome. Regardless, I put together what I thought was a solid self-evaluation that set out each of the goals that I accomplished in my role, the skills and competencies I demonstrated in achieving each goal, and my goals and plans for furthering my professional development over the next fiscal year. I'm self-aware that I'm not a rock star, but I get my work done, I do go above and beyond when it's called for, and have received good feedback from my stakeholders and client groups. I have regular open-ended meetings with my manager every other week, and to my recollection, they haven't expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of my work or my progress against my goals.
The performance review discussion:
The majority of the discussion was positive in tone, which is why I was surprised when my manager announced my final rating of 2. My manager urged me to not see it as a bad rating, that it is not meant as a negative reflection on me, and they really value me and my contributions. They also noted that I've only been with the company for a year and they see me moving on an upward trajectory. They also encouraged me to share my feedback on the review process. But how could I not take it as a bad rating? The language of the rating itself states that I'm not doing my job, that I'm failing to deliver on my responsibilities as expected.
I spoke to a friend and peer in the company who manages junior employees, and they said they were extremely unhappy with the rating system. They have employees who met but did not exceed expectations. Faced with the dilemma of either giving their employees a rating that is overly favorable, or one that would hurt their standing in the company, my peer felt they were ethically bound to give the overly favorable rating of 3. Ironically, my peer also received a rating of 2.
My take of the situation:
A few possibilities I've considered:
1. My manager truly felt that I underperformed (and never thought to tell me this or give me opportunities to improve over the course of the past year)
2. They had the same dilemma as my peer did but opted arbitrarily to underrate me
3. They really don't see the 2 as a bad rating, and perhaps were informally encouraged by leadership to treat that rating as encompassing good performance by employees who are still under development or new to the company, though that guidance is not found anywhere in the written guidelines
4. They know 2 is a bad rating, but were under pressure from leadership to be stingy with favorable ratings in order to minimize requests for raises or promotions, and in case they need to justify lay offs or terminations
Whatever the truth is, I really did enjoy my job up until this review, and now I'm left feeling very discouraged and like I was set up to fail. It also feels like an underhanded attempt by the leadership to force employees to go above and beyond their job descriptions and overwork themselves in order to have any chance of not being saddled with a bad rating on their record. It also feels like the ratings are much too arbitrary. As illustrated by the example of my peer, a good or bad rating comes down to the manager's own biased feelings about the rating scale and its inherent fairness or unfairness. It is especially rich as the company recently conducted a survey on employee satisfaction and, as a result of low morale ratings, launched a number of sessions providing employees with suggestions for how to improve work-life balance, enforce boundaries around answering calls and emails outside of regular office hours or during vacations, etc.
Though my manager encouraged me to share my feedback, my trust has been shaken and my gut feeling is that sharing any negative feedback will only come back to bite me, that I may be labeled as a troublemaker, unable to take constructive criticism, uncoachable, or unwilling to toe the company line. Maybe instead, I should keep my eye out for other opportunities, and in the meantime put more effort into covering my ass, asking for expectations to be made clear in writing, proactively asking if there's anything I should be improving on, etc. But it also doesn't sit right with me to not say anything.
My question:
Mefites, if you've ever been in a similar situation, how did you handle it and what was the outcome? What would you say or do if you were in my shoes? Managers, have you ever received negative feedback from employees about your company's performance review process? How was that feedback perceived and did it ultimately help or hurt the employees?
Background context:
The company is a fairly large and established one, and still growing quickly. However, recent earnings reports have been a disappointment to shareholders and our stock value has taken a significant hit. Leadership had begun company-wide discussions about cutting costs and reducing spending right before performance reviews began.
The performance review method:
The current rating system is brand new to the company for this year. It's premised on a 4 point scale. Ratings 1-2 are described as varying degrees of "not meeting expectations," and ratings 3-4 are described as varying degrees of "exceeding expectations." There is no option for management to describe an employee who meets expectations, i.e. doing their job perfectly well, no more and no less. It should also be mentioned that you must receive a 3-4 rating in order to be eligible for a raise or promotion.
My self-evaluation:
I struggle to advocate for myself and, like many women in professional occupations, suffer from imposter syndrome. Regardless, I put together what I thought was a solid self-evaluation that set out each of the goals that I accomplished in my role, the skills and competencies I demonstrated in achieving each goal, and my goals and plans for furthering my professional development over the next fiscal year. I'm self-aware that I'm not a rock star, but I get my work done, I do go above and beyond when it's called for, and have received good feedback from my stakeholders and client groups. I have regular open-ended meetings with my manager every other week, and to my recollection, they haven't expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of my work or my progress against my goals.
The performance review discussion:
The majority of the discussion was positive in tone, which is why I was surprised when my manager announced my final rating of 2. My manager urged me to not see it as a bad rating, that it is not meant as a negative reflection on me, and they really value me and my contributions. They also noted that I've only been with the company for a year and they see me moving on an upward trajectory. They also encouraged me to share my feedback on the review process. But how could I not take it as a bad rating? The language of the rating itself states that I'm not doing my job, that I'm failing to deliver on my responsibilities as expected.
I spoke to a friend and peer in the company who manages junior employees, and they said they were extremely unhappy with the rating system. They have employees who met but did not exceed expectations. Faced with the dilemma of either giving their employees a rating that is overly favorable, or one that would hurt their standing in the company, my peer felt they were ethically bound to give the overly favorable rating of 3. Ironically, my peer also received a rating of 2.
My take of the situation:
A few possibilities I've considered:
1. My manager truly felt that I underperformed (and never thought to tell me this or give me opportunities to improve over the course of the past year)
2. They had the same dilemma as my peer did but opted arbitrarily to underrate me
3. They really don't see the 2 as a bad rating, and perhaps were informally encouraged by leadership to treat that rating as encompassing good performance by employees who are still under development or new to the company, though that guidance is not found anywhere in the written guidelines
4. They know 2 is a bad rating, but were under pressure from leadership to be stingy with favorable ratings in order to minimize requests for raises or promotions, and in case they need to justify lay offs or terminations
Whatever the truth is, I really did enjoy my job up until this review, and now I'm left feeling very discouraged and like I was set up to fail. It also feels like an underhanded attempt by the leadership to force employees to go above and beyond their job descriptions and overwork themselves in order to have any chance of not being saddled with a bad rating on their record. It also feels like the ratings are much too arbitrary. As illustrated by the example of my peer, a good or bad rating comes down to the manager's own biased feelings about the rating scale and its inherent fairness or unfairness. It is especially rich as the company recently conducted a survey on employee satisfaction and, as a result of low morale ratings, launched a number of sessions providing employees with suggestions for how to improve work-life balance, enforce boundaries around answering calls and emails outside of regular office hours or during vacations, etc.
Though my manager encouraged me to share my feedback, my trust has been shaken and my gut feeling is that sharing any negative feedback will only come back to bite me, that I may be labeled as a troublemaker, unable to take constructive criticism, uncoachable, or unwilling to toe the company line. Maybe instead, I should keep my eye out for other opportunities, and in the meantime put more effort into covering my ass, asking for expectations to be made clear in writing, proactively asking if there's anything I should be improving on, etc. But it also doesn't sit right with me to not say anything.
My question:
Mefites, if you've ever been in a similar situation, how did you handle it and what was the outcome? What would you say or do if you were in my shoes? Managers, have you ever received negative feedback from employees about your company's performance review process? How was that feedback perceived and did it ultimately help or hurt the employees?
I've seen this kind of rating system play out. I think it is weird they don't have 'meets expectations' category but in a way they are surfacing their priorities, which is that if you're not exceeding you're not meeting (I am not defending this, but that would be my takeaway.)
I would personally not spend any time or effort giving feedback on the rating system specifically, even if you were invited to. For me that's "spreadsheet directing" -- people are making decisions at a wide-system level and they are unlikely to change course based on verbal or written feedback - they have to actually see a bad result. Whatever drove this decision doesn't have to do with you. (The bad results for this one would be either attrition or a drop in productivity.)
My advice for you is to surface the result of this rating to your manager. I think you could legitimately (depends on your manager) have a meeting where you say "you know, I was looking forward to a long-term, productive relationship in this role and I still want that. I'm here to produce results. But my rating has made me question my long-term success here. Can you help me understand how I can achieve a higher rating next time?" And then it's about seeing what that answer is.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:51 AM on May 5, 2023 [31 favorites]
I would personally not spend any time or effort giving feedback on the rating system specifically, even if you were invited to. For me that's "spreadsheet directing" -- people are making decisions at a wide-system level and they are unlikely to change course based on verbal or written feedback - they have to actually see a bad result. Whatever drove this decision doesn't have to do with you. (The bad results for this one would be either attrition or a drop in productivity.)
My advice for you is to surface the result of this rating to your manager. I think you could legitimately (depends on your manager) have a meeting where you say "you know, I was looking forward to a long-term, productive relationship in this role and I still want that. I'm here to produce results. But my rating has made me question my long-term success here. Can you help me understand how I can achieve a higher rating next time?" And then it's about seeing what that answer is.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:51 AM on May 5, 2023 [31 favorites]
I work at an organization with a similar rating. 3 is "meets expectations" and it is used when an employee is doing everything right--no issues, meeting all goals, etc. A 4 is only used for extraordinary over achievements (doubling goals or creating new processes or going above and beyond). We are told to think of a 3 as an A+ and a 2 as a solid B.
posted by museum nerd at 11:53 AM on May 5, 2023
posted by museum nerd at 11:53 AM on May 5, 2023
I would also maybe reframe the difference between your current manager and the other manager as this.
The rating system put them in a very black-and-white position. One manager, yours, went with the corporate directive to the letter. The other manager prioritized the feelings/individual ratings of their team. Both approaches have pluses and minuses in a corporate context and are also a bit personality-dependent.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:54 AM on May 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
The rating system put them in a very black-and-white position. One manager, yours, went with the corporate directive to the letter. The other manager prioritized the feelings/individual ratings of their team. Both approaches have pluses and minuses in a corporate context and are also a bit personality-dependent.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:54 AM on May 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
I would just have a discussion with your manager, and point out that a "2" means not meeting expectations even though you say: I have regular open-ended meetings with my manager every other week, and to my recollection, they haven't expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of my work or my progress against my goals.
That should give you some answers to your questions without actually getting into this trash rating system.
I once worked at a place where ratings were 1-5, and my boss told me that only one person could get a 4 and one could get a 5; maybe there's something similar at your office, and if there are rock stars on your team, they're the ones getting the 3s and 4s. Asking the manager why you got this rating is the only way you'll get solid answers.
posted by jabes at 12:20 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
That should give you some answers to your questions without actually getting into this trash rating system.
I once worked at a place where ratings were 1-5, and my boss told me that only one person could get a 4 and one could get a 5; maybe there's something similar at your office, and if there are rock stars on your team, they're the ones getting the 3s and 4s. Asking the manager why you got this rating is the only way you'll get solid answers.
posted by jabes at 12:20 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
I've encountered situations where managers had a set quota for how many positive ratings they could give (possibly due to a limited budget for pay raises), and so they had to make some hard decisions as to how to allocate the limited number of 3's and 4's. Maybe this is what happened to you.
If your manager specifically said that you could give feedback on the rating system, I would go ahead and give your feedback, but make sure it's polite and professional (of course).
posted by akk2014 at 12:22 PM on May 5, 2023 [5 favorites]
If your manager specifically said that you could give feedback on the rating system, I would go ahead and give your feedback, but make sure it's polite and professional (of course).
posted by akk2014 at 12:22 PM on May 5, 2023 [5 favorites]
If there is truly no “meets expectations” score, this entire system seems designed to keep raises and thus payroll as low as possible and if that’s the case, complaining about it will do nothing as upper management knows what they’re doing and why they’re doing it.
posted by rhymedirective at 12:28 PM on May 5, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by rhymedirective at 12:28 PM on May 5, 2023 [11 favorites]
Your company may be officially (or unofficially) doing what is called stack ranking, or more commonly known as "grading on a curve". For business reasons, your manager is required to give out a fixed number of "exceeds expectations" and "not meeting expectations" to each team. What it really means is that those words become largely meaningless, as your manager basically says in your review. The rankings now mean "how important is this person to our company, and how much do we want to retain them", and as a new person, you are unfortunately less valuable in the short-term.
Your feedback probably should not talk about this, because your manager likely has no control over the system. You just have to say that you believed you met expectations, you did not get any feedback during the year that you didn't meet expectations, it seems like your manager agrees you met expectations - but your rating doesn't reflect any of this and you are unhappy.
(stack ranking is believed to be very bad for companies, but everyone does it anyway)
posted by meowzilla at 12:30 PM on May 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
Your feedback probably should not talk about this, because your manager likely has no control over the system. You just have to say that you believed you met expectations, you did not get any feedback during the year that you didn't meet expectations, it seems like your manager agrees you met expectations - but your rating doesn't reflect any of this and you are unhappy.
(stack ranking is believed to be very bad for companies, but everyone does it anyway)
posted by meowzilla at 12:30 PM on May 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
I'm sorry you got caught in a shitty corp perf review system. They can be absolutely brutal and create a terrible working environment where you're constantly worried if you're doing well enough. Which I cynically think after my own experience with them is the whole point, not 'objective review' as the corp would claim.
So I feel like your mgr is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. If you aren't eligible for a promotion at 2, then how can they see that you have an 'upward trajectory'? It doesn't make any sense. I think if I wanted to stay at this job I would get as much clarity as I could on how these 2 statements reconcile. Can you switch teams now if another opportunity comes along or are you stuck until you move to 3. (At my previous employee you got stuck, so if you had a personality conflict with your mgr and got a bad rating, you could get shut out of opportunities to stay at the company). I also would ask my mgr if there was a curve they were expected to grade on or if perf reviews were finalized by a committee or upper level mgrs. I think it's ok to ask if these things are part of the review process so that you understand what you are up against process wise and adjust the visibility of your goal setting/work accordingly.
But honestly I'd start looking for another job. I concur with prev posters that this sounds like a system designed to keep raises at a min and have an easy paper trail of who gets cut when the layoffs happen, instead of a system designed to reward employees and encourage them to stay.
posted by snowymorninblues at 12:35 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
So I feel like your mgr is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. If you aren't eligible for a promotion at 2, then how can they see that you have an 'upward trajectory'? It doesn't make any sense. I think if I wanted to stay at this job I would get as much clarity as I could on how these 2 statements reconcile. Can you switch teams now if another opportunity comes along or are you stuck until you move to 3. (At my previous employee you got stuck, so if you had a personality conflict with your mgr and got a bad rating, you could get shut out of opportunities to stay at the company). I also would ask my mgr if there was a curve they were expected to grade on or if perf reviews were finalized by a committee or upper level mgrs. I think it's ok to ask if these things are part of the review process so that you understand what you are up against process wise and adjust the visibility of your goal setting/work accordingly.
But honestly I'd start looking for another job. I concur with prev posters that this sounds like a system designed to keep raises at a min and have an easy paper trail of who gets cut when the layoffs happen, instead of a system designed to reward employees and encourage them to stay.
posted by snowymorninblues at 12:35 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Do not waste your time or energy on providing feedback. This company has given you an incredibly clear indication of who they are, and while your immediate manager may have been indicating their own discomfort with the process by saying you should provide feedback, that’s at best a promise they can’t fulfill, and at worst a trap to identify malcontents who should be let go in the (inevitable) next round of layoffs.
Focus your energy on finding a new job with better management.
posted by fedward at 12:51 PM on May 5, 2023 [12 favorites]
Focus your energy on finding a new job with better management.
posted by fedward at 12:51 PM on May 5, 2023 [12 favorites]
So frustrating. In my experience (as employee advocating for myself, and supervisor advocating for a group) I have found HR, as an organization, to be exceedingly bad at taking feedback or admitting error on this sort of thing. Presumably in part from fear of entire classes of lawsuits. It doesn't mean feedback is totally useless, but it's never satisfying.
The first question to ask yourself is what you really want to give feedback on: Is it actually the process, or is it how it was applied to you and the rating you got?
Giving feedback on the process is actually pretty easy and fairly low risk, but also not going to have any visible impact. Write a polite e-mail, point to the confusion right at the level most employees should be performing at, mention you've heard concurring opinions from colleagues both assigning and receiving ratings. Put on your blandest corporate tone: Use "I" statements ("I was confused," not "This system sucks") but do not mention your own rating directly. Do not impute motivation ("set up to fail") to anyone.
(As an aside, corporations I know don't keep raise levels low by giving people low ratings. Ratings are free. Instead they have a raise budget, then go through the rating process and then choose individual raises based on some opaque formula. I even know one wobbly-kneed department head who was so afraid of criticism from his employees that basically everyone working for him got an "Above Average" rating or better, but then he couldn't even meet the "Meets Expectation" recommended raise for those people from his available budget.)
Anyway, complaining about your own treatment is another approach. Again, be polite and professional; the point is not to vent. But I think you have a strong case to say "I feel I was treated unfairly because I am clearly much better than a '2', as my boss laid out in the verbiage in the written review . . . " IME this will not lead to immediate recompense but may improve the odds of (1) a mid-year equity adjustment or (2) some behind the scenes 'clarification' that makes your boss feel comfortable giving you a better rating next year.
In most large organizations doing this calmly will not brand you a troublemaker. I can't absolutely rule out some thin-skinned HR person being irrationally offended by negative feedback, but for the most part in a sea of angry employees one person saying "Can you explain this better to me? And maybe make it better in the next 6-12 months?" will look rational and mature.
Last note on a long comment: As a boss I encouraged employees to give feedback to my boss many times, and it's always been sincere. Sometimes just so they didn't feel I was hiding their complaints, but sometimes because I thought if they advocated directly it would make it easier for me to get them the raise I thought they deserved next year.
posted by mark k at 12:52 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
The first question to ask yourself is what you really want to give feedback on: Is it actually the process, or is it how it was applied to you and the rating you got?
Giving feedback on the process is actually pretty easy and fairly low risk, but also not going to have any visible impact. Write a polite e-mail, point to the confusion right at the level most employees should be performing at, mention you've heard concurring opinions from colleagues both assigning and receiving ratings. Put on your blandest corporate tone: Use "I" statements ("I was confused," not "This system sucks") but do not mention your own rating directly. Do not impute motivation ("set up to fail") to anyone.
(As an aside, corporations I know don't keep raise levels low by giving people low ratings. Ratings are free. Instead they have a raise budget, then go through the rating process and then choose individual raises based on some opaque formula. I even know one wobbly-kneed department head who was so afraid of criticism from his employees that basically everyone working for him got an "Above Average" rating or better, but then he couldn't even meet the "Meets Expectation" recommended raise for those people from his available budget.)
Anyway, complaining about your own treatment is another approach. Again, be polite and professional; the point is not to vent. But I think you have a strong case to say "I feel I was treated unfairly because I am clearly much better than a '2', as my boss laid out in the verbiage in the written review . . . " IME this will not lead to immediate recompense but may improve the odds of (1) a mid-year equity adjustment or (2) some behind the scenes 'clarification' that makes your boss feel comfortable giving you a better rating next year.
In most large organizations doing this calmly will not brand you a troublemaker. I can't absolutely rule out some thin-skinned HR person being irrationally offended by negative feedback, but for the most part in a sea of angry employees one person saying "Can you explain this better to me? And maybe make it better in the next 6-12 months?" will look rational and mature.
Last note on a long comment: As a boss I encouraged employees to give feedback to my boss many times, and it's always been sincere. Sometimes just so they didn't feel I was hiding their complaints, but sometimes because I thought if they advocated directly it would make it easier for me to get them the raise I thought they deserved next year.
posted by mark k at 12:52 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Whatever drove this decision doesn't have to do with you.
Exactly.
I've encountered situations where managers had a set quota for how many positive ratings they could give (possibly due to a limited budget for pay raises), and so they had to make some hard decisions as to how to allocate the limited number of 3's and 4's.
That's pretty clearly how it works at my company. I have a great manager, and at times, she's profusely praised my performance. One year I outperformed everyone else on my team on a key metric. I still got a "2" (on a scale exactly like the one you're subject to).
Do not waste your time or energy on providing feedback.
Agreed. This is way bigger than you. Don't take it personally -- it's a curve that you have no control over. Focus on your overall relationship with your boss, and your overall performance, but not this arbitrary number created by an irrational, rigged system. It is not a reflection of your actual merit.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:56 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Exactly.
I've encountered situations where managers had a set quota for how many positive ratings they could give (possibly due to a limited budget for pay raises), and so they had to make some hard decisions as to how to allocate the limited number of 3's and 4's.
That's pretty clearly how it works at my company. I have a great manager, and at times, she's profusely praised my performance. One year I outperformed everyone else on my team on a key metric. I still got a "2" (on a scale exactly like the one you're subject to).
Do not waste your time or energy on providing feedback.
Agreed. This is way bigger than you. Don't take it personally -- it's a curve that you have no control over. Focus on your overall relationship with your boss, and your overall performance, but not this arbitrary number created by an irrational, rigged system. It is not a reflection of your actual merit.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:56 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Agreed. I've described my assessment of the Performance Review process as a period of time where you and your supervisor feel a little uncomfortable but it passes quickly, and has no real bearing on your job -- it's just an HR exercise everybody has to go through, but the amount of your raise was and is determined based on other factors, so don't sweat it.
posted by Rash at 1:12 PM on May 5, 2023
posted by Rash at 1:12 PM on May 5, 2023
Two things could be going on here.
First, are you sure that a 2 isn't actually "meets expectations" rather than a negative rating? At a company with a reasonable ratings standard, "meets expectations" is perfectly fine.
I'm a somewhat bigshot engineer at everyone's favorite fruit company, and my org went through a decently long period of "review inflation" where most of us would have needed to be household names to the general public to justify what was getting into our reviews. This lead to a drastic realignment in how we do reviews, and now like 95% of us "meet expectations", with the "expectation" that we operate at an extremely high level of excellence. "Exceeding" is a big deal, which it should be. The same people get the same raises and RSU refreshers and all that, but our reviews are far less ridiculous.
So, if you you worked with me, a "meets expectations" is something to celebrate.
Or second, if your company has comp tied to ratings, there might be pressure to lower the numbers because there isn't the money to follow their internal process. I worked for a place where a VP told each of that we were all going to get "Needs to Improve", but it was all bullshit because it was 2009 and we needed to keep the lights on rather than give out raises. This is obviously very stupid, but it happens.
But, the only people who really needs to think you are doing a good job is yourself, and your manager. If you manager told you that you are doing great, then pay attention to that that, not the rating number. Because if it were the other way around, you'd want to be polishing up your resume, but because the highest rating plus a manager that thinks you are terrible tends to immediately lead to you finding a new role.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 1:18 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
First, are you sure that a 2 isn't actually "meets expectations" rather than a negative rating? At a company with a reasonable ratings standard, "meets expectations" is perfectly fine.
I'm a somewhat bigshot engineer at everyone's favorite fruit company, and my org went through a decently long period of "review inflation" where most of us would have needed to be household names to the general public to justify what was getting into our reviews. This lead to a drastic realignment in how we do reviews, and now like 95% of us "meet expectations", with the "expectation" that we operate at an extremely high level of excellence. "Exceeding" is a big deal, which it should be. The same people get the same raises and RSU refreshers and all that, but our reviews are far less ridiculous.
So, if you you worked with me, a "meets expectations" is something to celebrate.
Or second, if your company has comp tied to ratings, there might be pressure to lower the numbers because there isn't the money to follow their internal process. I worked for a place where a VP told each of that we were all going to get "Needs to Improve", but it was all bullshit because it was 2009 and we needed to keep the lights on rather than give out raises. This is obviously very stupid, but it happens.
But, the only people who really needs to think you are doing a good job is yourself, and your manager. If you manager told you that you are doing great, then pay attention to that that, not the rating number. Because if it were the other way around, you'd want to be polishing up your resume, but because the highest rating plus a manager that thinks you are terrible tends to immediately lead to you finding a new role.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 1:18 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Focus your energy on finding a new job with better management.
I will say, since you seem early career, that this sort of advice is terrible. I'm a quarter century into the game, and I am still looking for my first job where the review process was constructive and wasn't a form of paperwork that everyone involved would agree was something that did not reflect the reality on the ground.
If you leave a job because of something like your boss wanted to give you a 2.8 but there was only the option of 2 or 3, you will do nothing but find new jobs.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 1:23 PM on May 5, 2023 [9 favorites]
I will say, since you seem early career, that this sort of advice is terrible. I'm a quarter century into the game, and I am still looking for my first job where the review process was constructive and wasn't a form of paperwork that everyone involved would agree was something that did not reflect the reality on the ground.
If you leave a job because of something like your boss wanted to give you a 2.8 but there was only the option of 2 or 3, you will do nothing but find new jobs.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 1:23 PM on May 5, 2023 [9 favorites]
Yes. This kind of rating system sucks.
I've been on both sides: First as a new employee, then as someone who had to evaluate the people reporting to me.
Senior managers were all told directly by the C-suite that they could only "give out" a score of 3 or 4 for the most extraordinary performers, and that everyone (including HR) expected most employees to score a 2.
It was in no way a rating of actual performance.
posted by yellowcandy at 1:30 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
I've been on both sides: First as a new employee, then as someone who had to evaluate the people reporting to me.
Senior managers were all told directly by the C-suite that they could only "give out" a score of 3 or 4 for the most extraordinary performers, and that everyone (including HR) expected most employees to score a 2.
It was in no way a rating of actual performance.
posted by yellowcandy at 1:30 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
At the companies I have worked for performance evaluations are a farce. I'm basing this on the experience of being rated a 4 and a teammate rated a 1 and we got the same cost of living adjustment.
posted by MadMadam at 2:05 PM on May 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by MadMadam at 2:05 PM on May 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't ask your manager how you received a 2 when you meet every week and haven't heard any negative feedback previously. That might encourage them to give you more negative feedback. I would ask them how to get to a 3, then deliver what they say. More importantly, though, this sounds like a really sick culture, and I'd focus most of your effort on getting out and finding another job.
posted by slidell at 2:35 PM on May 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by slidell at 2:35 PM on May 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
I would ask them how to get to a 3, then deliver what they say.
Your manager may not even have had much input into the scores. At a previous job, I used to rate my people, and then people more senior than me would go into a room, and random numbers would come back out. If I tried to get a better score for someone who deserved it, they'd try to give a worse score to someone who didn't deserve that. And so I had no useful idea for how to respond to questions about how to get a higher score, because the entire process was so completely opaque, even at my manager's level.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 2:49 PM on May 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
Your manager may not even have had much input into the scores. At a previous job, I used to rate my people, and then people more senior than me would go into a room, and random numbers would come back out. If I tried to get a better score for someone who deserved it, they'd try to give a worse score to someone who didn't deserve that. And so I had no useful idea for how to respond to questions about how to get a higher score, because the entire process was so completely opaque, even at my manager's level.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 2:49 PM on May 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
Sorry you are facing this. I lead a team of 25 at one of the tech giants, and am faced with a ratings quota in line with what akk2014 mentions, which requires me to push the managers below me to stick to the numbers. We also face a similar quota in the promo rounds, which nets out to a stack ranking that meowzilla brought up. Hard decisions need to be made as to which of the strongest players get flagged as such.
It sucks, as it feels like a constant cycle of anxiety, anticipation and disappointment that leaves much of the team demoralized and angry, and me forever treading water to keep the team motivated.
It’s not you, it’s the numbers.
posted by nandaro at 3:03 PM on May 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
It sucks, as it feels like a constant cycle of anxiety, anticipation and disappointment that leaves much of the team demoralized and angry, and me forever treading water to keep the team motivated.
It’s not you, it’s the numbers.
posted by nandaro at 3:03 PM on May 5, 2023 [2 favorites]
You're new and some companies have an unwritten expectation that no one can receive the "meets expectations" score (which I think is the 3 in this system, since it usually goes "does not meet/ progressing toward / meets / exceeds" on a four point scale) on their first review. This is a terrible system, to be clear, but I'd try to ask around and feel out if it's the one in play.
posted by capricorn at 3:48 PM on May 5, 2023
posted by capricorn at 3:48 PM on May 5, 2023
The things that are useful for you to do here are going to be specifically things that make your manager more likely to give you a three later on, OR things that get you reassurance that this is normal, if it is, OR things that get you more clarity into how your management values your actual performance (if you're spending all your time on perfecting the widget inventory but they just want a good-enough number and want you spending more time on teapot painting, say).
Examples: Asking for more clarity on why you aren't considered to be meeting expectations and what needs to improve, asking how to get a three the next year. Asking what proportion of employees receive each rating and how seriously you should take this negative feedback. (No matter what your manager tells you about it being fine and normal, if only 10% get a 2 that's a bad sign. If it's 40% and the REAL low performers get a 1 you are probably ok and you might feel better about it.)
No feedback you give on the overall process will be valued here, because honestly you don't have the perspective and experience to be heard in that large scale of governance decisions. The closest you can do is express your own confusion a little and ask for more clarity (what rating should most people expect? What proportion of the company receives a raise most years?) - if your managers are getting those questions a lot or can't answer them that will be practical feedback and it will be coming from the manager's experience, not look like someone junior trying to tell them what to do.
But also, they just categorized you as not eligible for a raise, if I understand your post correctly. So either you're in a low performer category (past tech places I've worked have set "needs improvement, not eligible for a raise" around 15%) or the company expects to only give raises to their top performers, which isn't a good sign for your long term future there either.
posted by Lady Li at 3:49 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Examples: Asking for more clarity on why you aren't considered to be meeting expectations and what needs to improve, asking how to get a three the next year. Asking what proportion of employees receive each rating and how seriously you should take this negative feedback. (No matter what your manager tells you about it being fine and normal, if only 10% get a 2 that's a bad sign. If it's 40% and the REAL low performers get a 1 you are probably ok and you might feel better about it.)
No feedback you give on the overall process will be valued here, because honestly you don't have the perspective and experience to be heard in that large scale of governance decisions. The closest you can do is express your own confusion a little and ask for more clarity (what rating should most people expect? What proportion of the company receives a raise most years?) - if your managers are getting those questions a lot or can't answer them that will be practical feedback and it will be coming from the manager's experience, not look like someone junior trying to tell them what to do.
But also, they just categorized you as not eligible for a raise, if I understand your post correctly. So either you're in a low performer category (past tech places I've worked have set "needs improvement, not eligible for a raise" around 15%) or the company expects to only give raises to their top performers, which isn't a good sign for your long term future there either.
posted by Lady Li at 3:49 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
I think it’s likely your manager may be working backwards—you’re not eligible for a raise/promo this cycle for whatever reason (probably you’re too new or it’s someone else’s turn, or general budget reasons.) Therefore your review must match that.
In my company, raises/promos are supposed to be based on performance, including the results of performance reviews. But the dirty little secret is that our budget is set in stone well before the review process starts.
I agree this sucks. However, if it’s a bullshit process like this, they know it, they like it, and they will dismiss your feedback as sour grapes. Depending on how prickly the individual is to whom you deliver this feedback, it could even backfire.
I agree with the advice that you can ask what specific improvements you need to show to make 3/4s. But be aware you can do all of that and more and if they’ve adopted a backwards bullshit process like this, it won’t really matter.
posted by kapers at 4:22 PM on May 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
In my company, raises/promos are supposed to be based on performance, including the results of performance reviews. But the dirty little secret is that our budget is set in stone well before the review process starts.
I agree this sucks. However, if it’s a bullshit process like this, they know it, they like it, and they will dismiss your feedback as sour grapes. Depending on how prickly the individual is to whom you deliver this feedback, it could even backfire.
I agree with the advice that you can ask what specific improvements you need to show to make 3/4s. But be aware you can do all of that and more and if they’ve adopted a backwards bullshit process like this, it won’t really matter.
posted by kapers at 4:22 PM on May 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
Do not waste your time or energy on providing feedback.
This. The only way to win is to not play, and unless you leave, you have to play. You are trying to reason it out and make sense of it, and there is no sense to be made. These systems all suck and as an arm of HR, de facto only exist to serve the company. The bigger the company, the worse it is. If you feel undervalued, start looking elsewhere. The only way to truly increase your salary to any significant degree is to change jobs/companies. I am sorry you are stuck in what I know is a very frustrating place.
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 4:49 AM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
This. The only way to win is to not play, and unless you leave, you have to play. You are trying to reason it out and make sense of it, and there is no sense to be made. These systems all suck and as an arm of HR, de facto only exist to serve the company. The bigger the company, the worse it is. If you feel undervalued, start looking elsewhere. The only way to truly increase your salary to any significant degree is to change jobs/companies. I am sorry you are stuck in what I know is a very frustrating place.
posted by I_Love_Bananas at 4:49 AM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Any system based on people rating each other, whether it be Uber, AirBnB or managers evaluating their workers, is fundamentally corrupted by various financial motives, but things like this in the private sector, as others here have pointed out, are *designed* to keep workers feeling stressed out, insecure, inadequate, etc.. It's all bullshit.
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:01 AM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by The Card Cheat at 5:01 AM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
How was that feedback perceived and did it ultimately help or hurt the employees?
It hurts the employees because that's exactly what it's designed to do.
Corporations are not democracies. They are wholly authoritarian power structures, and like all authoritarian power structures their sole reason for existence is to enrich those in power by extracting more value from the less powerful than they are compensated for.
Performance reviews are nothing but a fig leaf over the exercise of naked managerial power. They have nothing to do with making the corporation work better, because the people running corporations do not care how well the corporations function except insofar as they don't fail so incredibly badly as to break down entirely.
Part of what a performance review is for is to provide the C-suite with a legally defensible excuse for firing anybody they deem too troublesome and/or expensive to keep. What unfair performance reviews are for is to annoy those workers most likely to challenge the existing power structure enough to do so, which puts them next in line for firing. The genius of using negative reviews for this is that management already has the fig leaf in place for any such firing.
You cannot challenge the power of management by complaining about management's rigged review processes. The only way to counteract the abuses of power that are part and parcel of every authoritarian structure is to organize genuinely democratic structures to oppose them.
posted by flabdablet at 5:08 AM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
It hurts the employees because that's exactly what it's designed to do.
Corporations are not democracies. They are wholly authoritarian power structures, and like all authoritarian power structures their sole reason for existence is to enrich those in power by extracting more value from the less powerful than they are compensated for.
Performance reviews are nothing but a fig leaf over the exercise of naked managerial power. They have nothing to do with making the corporation work better, because the people running corporations do not care how well the corporations function except insofar as they don't fail so incredibly badly as to break down entirely.
Part of what a performance review is for is to provide the C-suite with a legally defensible excuse for firing anybody they deem too troublesome and/or expensive to keep. What unfair performance reviews are for is to annoy those workers most likely to challenge the existing power structure enough to do so, which puts them next in line for firing. The genius of using negative reviews for this is that management already has the fig leaf in place for any such firing.
You cannot challenge the power of management by complaining about management's rigged review processes. The only way to counteract the abuses of power that are part and parcel of every authoritarian structure is to organize genuinely democratic structures to oppose them.
posted by flabdablet at 5:08 AM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
It didn't occur to me to wonder. Have they revealed the recommended breakdowns for each score? If not, you should ask.
If it's 10% get a four, 20% get a three, 60% get a two and10% get a one, then your boss's claim that a 2 is a good rating is pretty defensible. Not a rockstar, but in a competent company you are doing well. In such a system some above average performers will get a two. Complaints about your own score (as opposed to the process) would need to keep in mind that you are are justifying a spot in the top third.
If the most common rating is a three, or (shudder) they expect these rating to be equally distributed. then it's a different approach to trying to fix that.
Either way thinking about this is highlighting for me how exceptionally poorly this is designed.
posted by mark k at 9:11 AM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
If it's 10% get a four, 20% get a three, 60% get a two and10% get a one, then your boss's claim that a 2 is a good rating is pretty defensible. Not a rockstar, but in a competent company you are doing well. In such a system some above average performers will get a two. Complaints about your own score (as opposed to the process) would need to keep in mind that you are are justifying a spot in the top third.
If the most common rating is a three, or (shudder) they expect these rating to be equally distributed. then it's a different approach to trying to fix that.
Either way thinking about this is highlighting for me how exceptionally poorly this is designed.
posted by mark k at 9:11 AM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Long-time manager here. So here's the thing you really need to figure out: is a 2 actually bad or is it just not glowing? I cannot tell and this is the first question you need to ask your manager. I strongly suspect that it is not the disaster you seem to feel that it is, that it is a totally fine rating that indicates that you are meeting the expectations of an employee with your tenure, and that your manager having no option for giving you a meets opted for the 2 as a proxy for that.
It is extremely, extremely likely that there is a quota of some sorts on ratings, that a person who has only been with the company for a year is likely to get a lower rating due to factors that may be company-influenced (due to tenure, you are not eligible for promotion/compensation adjustments, and the rating is a factor in these processes so your manager decided not to waste a 3 on someone for whom it could not help), and that in fact you are doing totally fine as your manager has indicated throughout the verbal review and through all interactions.
Many people get really upset at ratings they think are unfair, but most do not appreciate that there are a bunch of factors going into ratings that are beyond your individual performance, and this is true at almost every single company. Yes, I know this is ridiculous, but there it is. Finding a new job is not likely to fix this. My experience is that most people are unhappy with any review other than some degree of exceeding (and this is not, as stereotypes would have it, an early career habit, I've had men in their 50s express unhappiness that despite being at the top of the career path and recently promoted they still didn't get an exceeding expectations rating!). From what you have said, it does not sound like you think your performance clearly justifies an exceeding expectations rating. I'm sort of surprised your peer was able to give a bunch of junior employees exceeding expectations ratings but the fact that they also got a 2 may be a hint to you that this person is themselves still figuring out their job.
You can totally complain about this to your manager, to HR, or whomever, and in my experience if you are professional about it it's unlikely to blow back on you in any way. But I would guess that your manager knows that this system sucks, that almost everyone in management is pissed about it, and that they can't really do much about it. I actually lean on the side of calmly sharing that you feel disappointed that you have been given an implicitly negative rating despite all other feedback being that you are meeting the expectations of your work, and it feels a bit demotivating, because it is and it did.
And then, yes, ask your manager what it would mean for you to get a 3 next year! Make them do their job coaching you and being clearer on their expectations. I think it would be kind of silly to quit a job you have up till now liked over something like this, assuming everything else is going ok. Every job has moments that suck, but unless you are really seriously underperforming (which again, it does not sound like you are), I'm not sure quitting a new job is the best approach.
(as an aside, I was curious what a 4 point rating scale might look like and it is interesting that most writing on this topic puts it as 1-needs development 2-meets 3-exceeds 4-outstanding, so your company choosing to go another way is something of an outlier. Wouldn't surprise me if this ratings scale doesn't survive another year as again, I bet a lot of people are pissed about it, it's a very uncommon model, and HR loves to change rating systems anyway).
posted by ch1x0r at 10:58 AM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
It is extremely, extremely likely that there is a quota of some sorts on ratings, that a person who has only been with the company for a year is likely to get a lower rating due to factors that may be company-influenced (due to tenure, you are not eligible for promotion/compensation adjustments, and the rating is a factor in these processes so your manager decided not to waste a 3 on someone for whom it could not help), and that in fact you are doing totally fine as your manager has indicated throughout the verbal review and through all interactions.
Many people get really upset at ratings they think are unfair, but most do not appreciate that there are a bunch of factors going into ratings that are beyond your individual performance, and this is true at almost every single company. Yes, I know this is ridiculous, but there it is. Finding a new job is not likely to fix this. My experience is that most people are unhappy with any review other than some degree of exceeding (and this is not, as stereotypes would have it, an early career habit, I've had men in their 50s express unhappiness that despite being at the top of the career path and recently promoted they still didn't get an exceeding expectations rating!). From what you have said, it does not sound like you think your performance clearly justifies an exceeding expectations rating. I'm sort of surprised your peer was able to give a bunch of junior employees exceeding expectations ratings but the fact that they also got a 2 may be a hint to you that this person is themselves still figuring out their job.
You can totally complain about this to your manager, to HR, or whomever, and in my experience if you are professional about it it's unlikely to blow back on you in any way. But I would guess that your manager knows that this system sucks, that almost everyone in management is pissed about it, and that they can't really do much about it. I actually lean on the side of calmly sharing that you feel disappointed that you have been given an implicitly negative rating despite all other feedback being that you are meeting the expectations of your work, and it feels a bit demotivating, because it is and it did.
And then, yes, ask your manager what it would mean for you to get a 3 next year! Make them do their job coaching you and being clearer on their expectations. I think it would be kind of silly to quit a job you have up till now liked over something like this, assuming everything else is going ok. Every job has moments that suck, but unless you are really seriously underperforming (which again, it does not sound like you are), I'm not sure quitting a new job is the best approach.
(as an aside, I was curious what a 4 point rating scale might look like and it is interesting that most writing on this topic puts it as 1-needs development 2-meets 3-exceeds 4-outstanding, so your company choosing to go another way is something of an outlier. Wouldn't surprise me if this ratings scale doesn't survive another year as again, I bet a lot of people are pissed about it, it's a very uncommon model, and HR loves to change rating systems anyway).
posted by ch1x0r at 10:58 AM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
I would guess that your manager knows that this system sucks, that almost everyone in management is pissed about it, and that they can't really do much about it.
Sometimes the broken stairs that organizations work to protect are not individuals, but inherent in the shape of the thing.
posted by flabdablet at 11:35 AM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Sometimes the broken stairs that organizations work to protect are not individuals, but inherent in the shape of the thing.
posted by flabdablet at 11:35 AM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that most people or everyone just get twos. They're budget cutting, 'nuff said. If nobody is going to spend the money to reward "outstanding" employees, then why have anyone outstand? Added bonus: gender/sexism's probably in the equation too. Rankings at my job mean nothing because if you're fine it's "meets" and if you're a walking toilet of suck like me who gets ones and still somehow isn't fired, then that doesn't matter either, does it. Everyone is required to do the stupid things and nobody wants them and they mean nothing.
Though my manager encouraged me to share my feedback, my trust has been shaken and my gut feeling is that sharing any negative feedback will only come back to bite me, that I may be labeled as a troublemaker,
Yeah, no way in hell would I say anything. One person (especially if it's a woman new to the job) complaining isn't going to get anywhere positive and it may very well make things worse. I feel like "my manager encouraged me" is wandering into Ask vs. Guess culture because I seriously wonder if (a) manager is required to say something like that, (b) does manager actually MEAN it or is that just a token thing they have to say., and (c) is it safe for you to ask for clarification on that. Also, who is the manager supposedly asking you to share feedback with?
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:46 PM on May 6, 2023
Though my manager encouraged me to share my feedback, my trust has been shaken and my gut feeling is that sharing any negative feedback will only come back to bite me, that I may be labeled as a troublemaker,
Yeah, no way in hell would I say anything. One person (especially if it's a woman new to the job) complaining isn't going to get anywhere positive and it may very well make things worse. I feel like "my manager encouraged me" is wandering into Ask vs. Guess culture because I seriously wonder if (a) manager is required to say something like that, (b) does manager actually MEAN it or is that just a token thing they have to say., and (c) is it safe for you to ask for clarification on that. Also, who is the manager supposedly asking you to share feedback with?
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:46 PM on May 6, 2023
« Older Need help planning a Gulf Coast Florida vacation | Do you know whether your partner values your best... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Which industry are you in? I'm in tech, where across the board in the US at least, raises are being capped and layoffs are all over. This has resulted in HR telling us managers to show great restraint in positive, raise-worthy ratings. I had to downgrade every positive rating I gave my reports this year to a neutral.
It's true that in most places that one would merely apply "meets expectations" rather than a negative rating, but it sounds like the 2 in your company is basically that. And if you are indeed in an industry that's facing layoffs, please pick your battles.
posted by redlines at 11:49 AM on May 5, 2023 [5 favorites]