Have any CYA advice on evaluating my supervisor?

October 23, 2006 6:18 PM

I've been asked to provide a performance evaluation on my boss, by his boss. Am I going to get screwed?

It won't be a flattering one, as I don't think my boss (Bob) is a very good manager or even a good employee. And, I haven't been told it in so many words by his boss (Dave), but I think that Bob's job is on the line (the culmination of repeated management failure) and that this will be used as the final straw.

While I will stand behind every word I say in the evaluation as true and correct, yadda yadda yadda, it doesn't mean I'd be happy if Bob ever saw it. Even the most diplomatic phrasings can't whitewash "not talented" and "narcissistic."

If Bob is eventually to be out of the picture, I won't have to worry about retaliation... but who's to say he would be let go or transferred overnight? It's likely I'll have to work under Bob for at least the next few months. If he sees my evaluation, he will make my life a living hell, and with enough careful precision that there won't be anything I could report as reprisal to Dave. And (worst case scenario), what if they don't make an organizational change, and I have to work under Bob for the foreseeable future?

I've asked for Dave's word, and he's given it, that the evaluation will be confidential... but I also know that sometimes, state HR law guarantees an employee the right to see everything in his file. (I can't find that to be the case for NY via Google, but it doesn't mean it's not true.) I'm not protected under whistleblower laws, as far as I can tell.

Is there anything I can do to force Dave to keep the evaluation from Bob? W.W.AskMe.D.?

If it helps or matters, we're private sector in New York City, none of this is addressed in our employee handbook, and there is no HR person that I could go to for confidential advice.

posted by anonymous to Work & Money (22 answers total)

I can understand your discmfort and concern. I wonder if Dave would allow you to give a verbal review. Are you the only subordinate of Bob's to have been asked to give a review?
posted by ericb at 6:40 PM on October 23, 2006

Um, don't write it down?

Sometimes management realizes they've got a bad apple. They're seeking confirmation from this guy's staff that they can dump him and be better off for it. You can go in person and in private and testify to Dave about Bob's failings. This will be perfectly sufficient if they're looking to dump Bob.
posted by jellicle at 6:42 PM on October 23, 2006

Doing it verbally could be worse. Then you are at the mercy of what Dave writes as his notes from the meeting. If they are looking to hang Bob, they could trump up what was said. I would put it in writing and stick to facts. No opinion and no emotion. Ask Dave to send you an email that says they will keep anything written confidential. Then, if your life with Bob becomes a living hell, you may have cause against the firm.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 6:54 PM on October 23, 2006

If you do go with the written one, perhaps instead of using words like "not talented" and "narcississtic", you could describe the incidents that lead you to making that judgement.

EG, During the course of the XYZ project, Bob failed to make his requirements clear to the team, despite numerous emails (see attached). He would sometimes request data already provided and misinterpret this. (see Appendix 47). In his personal interactions with me, Bob failed to maintain an average personal space, and despite repeated requests, would continue to move in closer.

But I think the verbal interview is better. I sense that management are looking to blame someone if Bob jumps up and down, and if they have your report in writing, it's you.

Secondly, (i've recently left an arse- covering job this year so I'm a little paranoid), if you are at all offensive (overly critical etc) in your report, the boss's boss may label you as difficult to manage.
posted by b33j at 6:57 PM on October 23, 2006

My company is beginning to do this sort of thing - it's called a "360 review", for which people are reviewed by those above, at a peer level, and below them. If your company starting to do 360 reviews as a matter of policy, then I wouldn't worry.

Make you review honest, but as fair as you can. Find something positive to say (there is something good about the man's work, right?). You want to sound fair-minded rather than as though you're out to trash the man.
posted by orange swan at 7:01 PM on October 23, 2006

I had to do the same thing. I didn't feel secure trashing my mediocre boss, so I damned him with faint praise and elipses. Works well with superiors... often shows up for work on time. Has resolved conflicts by terminating contracts...Reads management texts...Spells very well.

Be careful. Management doesn't necessarily like honesty. Let your elipeses speak for you.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 7:01 PM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'd go for a mix of the above. Write a neutral (or perhaps slightly disapproving) review, and then tell Dave the unadulterated truth in person.

If Dave insists that you provide the gritty details in the review, then yes, you're screwed. If he's unwilling to do his own hatchet job, then he will also most likely be willing to point at you when questions start being asked.
posted by tkolar at 7:15 PM on October 23, 2006

If I read your question correctly, you've been asked to review Bob's performance, not Bob. That's an important bit of semantic difference, for a person in your position, anonymous. Hate the game, not the player, so to speak.

If you focus on goals and results, and Bob's demonstrated actions in converting company resources he's managing (labor , materials, space, overhead, etc.) to profit (or minimal cost, depending on whether you're group is a profit center or a cost center to your company), you've already put the task beyond personalities. If you say "Bob divided our departmental goal of achieving 10% greater annual sales volume into quarterly targets, but put 40% of our individual goals into the summer quarter, when our department is traditionally short staffed due to vacations." you've made a factual statement that illustrates why Bob is a dope, but you've never said "Bob is a dope."

Facts about goals, results, methods, and policies should be what any business evaluation is about. That's what Bob's superiors really want, I think, and that's what you should give them. Don't get into personalities and feelings, at all, and you won't need to use words like "not talented" and "narcissistic."
posted by paulsc at 7:20 PM on October 23, 2006

+1 to b33j. Don't write about how Bob is a narcissist. Write about his conduct in specific situations. Management can work it out. If you have anything positive to say, put it in there.

It's also fairer to Bob, if he sees it, because it gives him something specific to try to refute, rather than something open-ended like "not talented." And, if he ever gives you a hard time about it, it puts you in a slightly better position, because it's not personal.
posted by adamrice at 8:39 PM on October 23, 2006

sidebar to b33j, "difficult to manage" might come as a result of perceived disloyalty. Praise, honestly but faintly, and not in writing, unless you have a personal relatioship with the upper mgmt that would make you immune to this perception. Never display the stiletto.
posted by mwhybark at 9:10 PM on October 23, 2006

Maybe I'm naive here, but can't you just ask Dave what the purpose of your evaluation is? If he hems and haws and says "oh, we're just curious" then you might want to be concerned that Bob will get fired, retaliation, etc. But I first read it to be a 360 degree feedback implementation as orange swan indicates. If it's a standard 360, then it's no big deal. Is this the normal review period?

I was asked to give a review for a boss that my company was trying to fire. They had made him a target and put him on probation and were looking for whatever they could find to pull the trigger. I knew what was going on, but in my case I genuinely liked him, even if he wasn't the greatest at the position (see below). I said that we had all worked really hard that year and had a lot of good accomplishments, he contributed XYZ and we couldn't have done ABC without him. I knew that whatever I said wouldn't have really mattered, they would have found something else to get him with when I didn't say anything damning enough to use. Luckily he found a new job just before he was fired and the woman that was out to get him was later fired too (see below, also). So then I ended up doing the work of all three of us by myself, so I gave myself a promotion, whee!

I've worked with narcissistic managers who were effective. And really awesome people who were awful at their jobs. I would be honest about his actual performance and contributions, not his personality. At worst (best?) they'll fire him based on performance and at best (worst?) they'll come back to him with the feedback and areas to improve upon and maybe he'll actually improve. Phrase it as you would want your review phrased, and try to be as objective as possible.
posted by ml98tu at 9:31 PM on October 23, 2006

Is this normal? I can understand how your boss' superior might take you aside and ask what Dave is like as a boss. But it strikes me as inappropriate to ask you to violate chain of command and put it in writing.

Fuck Dave. I bet he's a dick.
posted by dhammond at 9:55 PM on October 23, 2006

Oops, when I said Dave, I meant Bob. My bad.

although it's quite possible that Bob is also a dick.
posted by dhammond at 9:56 PM on October 23, 2006

anonymous posted "Am I going to get screwed?"


Yup, you'll be marked as disloyal (to your boss or the company) no matter what you do.
posted by orthogonality at 8:05 AM on October 24, 2006

Assume that Bob will NOT be fired and that he WILL see your report.
posted by JamesMessick at 10:20 AM on October 24, 2006

Verbally is not the way to go in my experience. You'd be better off asking if your review could be kept confidential. You're not out to degrade or hurt his feelings but you feel to give an honest answer you wouldn't want to be singled out for being a factor if he does get canned.

A ton of companies don't really need concrete reasons to fire someone. They can usually make things up, or take a small happenstance and blow it up to something crucial. Chances are they're looking for validation on their own "hunch."
posted by PetiePal at 10:39 AM on October 24, 2006

Tell your boses's boss that you don't see how you can do this without repercussions --- in any case, anyone reading your review would have to assume you weren't being candid so it seems like a pointless exercise.

If reviews were anonymous, and lots of people submitted reviews, there is a possibility that this could be done fairly. But I know of at least one case where even an exit interview led to hatred and retribution.
posted by about_time at 10:44 AM on October 24, 2006

dhammond wrote...
Is this normal? I can understand how your boss' superior might take you aside and ask what Dave is like as a boss. But it strikes me as inappropriate to ask you to violate chain of command and put it in writing.

Yes it is normal. "360" or "Skip level" reviews are very common these days.

Also, there's no violation in the chain of command when a higher up asks someone lower in the chain to do something. It happens all the time, although usually it is done through the direct manager.
posted by tkolar at 11:11 AM on October 24, 2006

I would write a very pallid, but not negative review, and base it on the job description. If the job description says:"Develop and maintain close relationships with clients" write what Bob does, i.e., "Bob emails clients when new products are developed." If Bob really needs to be visiting and calling the client, anybody reading it can see the story, but you've said nothing bad about Bob. It's "damning with faint praise."

Don't go near this without the job description. Keep it quite short, unopinionated, emotionless, and bland. Don't use terms like narcissistic and untalented, which judge him as a person. Describe his work as calmly and factually as possible, with short declarative sentences. Bob may very well see it.
posted by theora55 at 4:25 PM on October 24, 2006

You can bet Bob will see it so I concur with theora, damn with faint praise is more than enough for Dave to know where Bob stands in your pantheon. If it's done well enough you will get Bob's job.
posted by ptm at 4:48 PM on October 24, 2006

Have any CYA advice on evaluating my supervisor?

Damn right I do. Don't write or say anything about your current boss that you wouldn't be proud to yell right in his face if you assumed that he was going to be your boss forever.

His superiors are in a difficult position. You can be damn sure they're paid more than you are to deal with it. Let them deal with it.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:23 AM on October 25, 2006

This is not a proper 360 situation. A proper 360 does not involve naming of sources. The criticism is intended to be contructive, not destructive. At my partner's job, the individuals themselves invite those they wish to offer feedback.
posted by Goofyy at 3:07 AM on October 25, 2006