I definitely agree that the performance review process does hardly any good. The fact that your boss gets to criticize you, and tell you whats wrong with your self is supposed to help you in the workplace? This makes no sense to me. It seems like the boss should focus on the good things that the employee did throughout that year, other than focus on the main problems that need fixing. The weaknesses of the employees should be brought to their attention right when the boss sees it as an issue, not hold up a list for a year and pile it all on them at once.
Performance and pay I believe usually do come in hand-in-hand. But it is also true that the market and budget in that area also contributes to the chance of getting a raise. If the business is making more money on a certain job, the employees working on that job could have a better chance for a raise compared to employees on a lesser successful job. I believe that it is a combination of work performance, job market, and budgets that contribute to the raises.
The performance evaluation process can be argued as objective. The fact that two separate bosses can give completely different evaluations of the same employee shows that this method is not consistent. Not only is it inconsistent, I think that the process is not even accurate. From my past experience, these performance evaluations are not helpful in developing better employees.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment