Would love to hear how other organizations approach annual performance reviews.

Anonymous

November 23,2021 at 5:47PM UTC

Welcome to Fairygodboss!

We’re the largest online career community helping women achieve their career goals. Gain access to articles, jobs, events, and a supportive network of women and allies. Membership is free, always.

Would love to hear how other organizations approach annual performance reviews. Ours are all done year end - and the form has changed over time but what has been consistent is the "rating system"

1 = Does not meet expectations

2 = Meets some expectations; improvement needed

3 = Meets expectations

4 = Frequently excels expectations

5 = Consistently far exceeds expectations

You get the raking in different areas as well as an overall ranking. It can be partial (like 3.5). Your overall score feeds into the pay increase/bonus payments, so it matters.

Last year we had a new VP take over our division; his personal stance is no one should be getting a "5" as it means you are overqualified for your job and shouldn't be in it anymore - so highest he will let anyone in the division get is a 4.0.

I have two issues - but need a check in to see if my thinking is off here.

(1) Since it ties into pay/bonus and the OVERALL org doesn't view a "5" as unattainable, it puts us in the position of getting lower pay increases/bonuses than those in other divisions.

(2) It also assumes that everyone is always looking to "move up". That is obviously her opinion, that a "good" employee will always be striving for that next rung. But here is mu biggest question - what is wrong with someone who enjoys the job they are currently in, who strives to be the very best at THAT job but without a desire to expand the role or move on to a "higher" one. Is it really not conceivable that someone can be really really really good (like more than a "4") in their current role yet want to stay in it?

Does anyone else who gives/gets performance reviews have an org with this same approach - a high score means it is time to move a person out of that role, with a policy to only go to a 4/5 unless you are ready to move that person to a new position?

Why women love us:

Daily articles on career topics
Jobs at companies dedicated to hiring more women
Advice and support from an authentic community
Events that help you level up in your career
Free membership, always

6 comments

Share your insight

Join an authentic community that helps women support each other at work. Share your professional experience or ask for advice — you can even post anonymously.

6 Comments

Join the conversation

AnonymousNovember 23,2021 at 7:27PM UTC
My former organization had a similar approach, except there were only 3 rankings: does not meet expectations, meets expectations, exceeds expectations. Our department leadership thought that there should be VERY FEW exceeds expectations, which was really, really frustrating. As a manager I had to HEAVILY advocate and justify this ranking, and as a stellar employee I felt like I did not receive ENOUGH of the highest ranking. The logic was that if you are doing exactly what you should be doing (meets expectations), then that's really, really good.
I think it was more along the lines of: if someone is exceeding in all aspects, they need to be given more work, or more challenging work, or more responsibility--which is unfortunate, because it leads to burnout and drove me away from the organization. And, yes, those numbers correlated to our merit increases--even more of a frustration and deterrent.
I wholeheartedly agree with your perspective and approach. In my former organization I voiced my concerns and opinion about this both as a manager who was evaluating direct reports, and as an employee who was being evaluated. Every. Year. :-( After 5 years, I moved on to another organization.
AnonymousNovember 23,2021 at 7:33PM UTC
I think that is just the sign of a poor manager. Note: I have one. I am not sure why they even have a rating scale if the top score is not obtainable. I don't have any advice I just wanted you to know you are not alone.
Rene LetendreNovember 23,2021 at 10:09PM UTC
Right?? Why have the top one if it is off limits? It is just plain silly.
AnonymousNovember 24,2021 at 4:52PM UTC
My last job had the same scale; no one was allowed to get over a 3 by decree.
AnonymousNovember 26,2021 at 5:09PM UTC
My work used to have a 5 point scale. Now we have a 3 point scale. Exceeds, meets, and does not meet. An upper manager says Exceeds is a place you visit, but don’t live. They decided not to give bonuses based on reviews. If you get a does not meet on any job aspect, you get put on a performance plan. And then whether you get meets or exceeds depends on your supervisor’s view towards the appraisal system more than anything else. It’s pretty worthless.
AnonymousNovember 27,2021 at 1:41PM UTC
Our company uses a 5 scale as well (Does not meet, Partially Meets, Successfully Meets, Consistently Exceeds, Far Exceeds). We are allowed to give 5's but we also have to meet a forced distribution. Fun times being forced to give someone in the org a "Does Not Meet". The other thing that I find crazy is we conduct performance reviews and compensation conversations at different times. The reasoning from HR is that they don't want the $ conversation to distract from the performance conversation - and yet they are directly linked (salary bump, bonus % and RSU grants are rigidly and directly tied to rating.)