<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Adobe scrapping yearly performance reviews ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-20T08:50:29-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Where'e the Beef?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3659960]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You want feedback?  I think your article (if I dare call it that) lacks any real substance, which will porbably be the same with Adobe's push for nixing annual evals.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3659960]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dwhipple]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:33:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Performance reviews but different]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3659013]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Performance reviews have been around for a long time and the critique of the traditional approach can no longer be ignored. Forward thinking companies are doing something about it. And rightfully so! Annual reviews, forced rankings, ratings that imply scientific data but are based on individuals subjective mood of the day are outdated in todays fast paced, transparent and collaborative world. The internet, social media as well as changed work conditions and requirements call for instant feedback. Why wait one year? We get reviewed on a daily basis anyway. Does that mean the answer is to scrap reviews all together? Not quite. I think the best way is to capture continuous feedback and progress. All you than need is mile stone meetings or performance check-ins every quarter or 6 months to summ up the ongoing communications and concentrate on future improvements. Those kind of reviews don't need to be complicated, lengthy or dreaded. And they certainly won't have any surprises or suffer from the 'recency effect'. There are many new tools like ours called 'Small Improvements' to help facilitate a more agile and lean approach to performance management. After all, the goal should not be compliance or bureaucracy but actual performance improvements.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3659013]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[LindaJon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2012 08:43:09 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Scary!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658797]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Wow, you have really solidified for me the main reason for periodic, formal reviews with the employee. Yes, managers should give feedback, ideally throughout the year. I have been fortunate to have pretty good managers throughout my career, but it sounds like just the opposite is the norm. &quot;Neither of these need involve the employee, however.&quot;If I had a poor manager, and that manager could submit my review to HR or management or whatever entity controls career progress and raises without my input, that would be truly  scary to me! The formal review process serves to protect the employee by allowing him or her to have insight into what the manager is putting in your record and giving you a chance to discuss it before signing off. Now I realize it may be rare that you can change what is said about you, but at least you know if your manager is feeding lies to those above her and might have more incentive to change jobs.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658797]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Glenn from Iowa]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 06:28:04 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Performance Reviews]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658714]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[When I went to work for Electronic Data Systems in 1985, my first manager told me that if there were any surprises in a performance review, the manager was doing a poor job.  20 years later, the corporate culture had declined to the point that people were being blindsided in punitive reviews and managers were forced to put a percentage of their people into four boxes that ranged from unsatisfactory to exemplary, no matter how they had all performed.  Thank God I was kicked out (with a very sweet good-bye kiss, I must say) before it got to the point that things reached under HP, with salary cuts being handed out just because they could.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658714]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rwniebuhr]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:24:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The piece I reference]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658535]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[was from a service I subscribe to. If I had listed the link, you would have had to subscribe as well.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658535]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[toni.bowers@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 08:25:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The problem with performance reviews]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658526]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The problem with performance reviews is that many don???t take into consideration every individual goal that was worked on and achieved. Most reviews only use a generic checklist that isn???t catered to the individual employee. The real-time feedback model that Adobe is shifting to makes much more sense. First, employees are given feedback when it???s needed--not a year or months later. Second, employees can take this feedback and apply it to their performance. If employees solely relied on quarterly or yearly performance reviews, many may be either waiting around for some kind of feedback or going in the wrong direction. Real-time feedback solves this issue since it gives the workforce an idea of where they need to go and how to get there while it???s happening, which is beneficial to both the workforce and the organization as a whole.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658526]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[GetWorkSimple]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:57:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Are the nuts in charge everywhere?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658489]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Oh, pretty much, these days. Whether we want to use &quot;Moral Mazes&quot; by Robert Jackall or &quot;The Management Trap&quot; by Dr. Chris Argyris to find the core sources of the problem, it's all about lies, cover ups and deception. The annual evaluation isn't a tool, the managers are.There is only one real reason for managers: To facilitate the work for the workers by providing the resources. Unfortunately, management has become an end in itself in sort of a narcissistic sociopathic sort of way.Much of the problem is trying to adapt to Generation Whine in the workplace, now that they have invaded it, but the problem has been brewing amongst the Boomers since the 1960s. It's all the same thing: Have your say, go your way and do nothing because they think that just discussing the problem is solving the problem.Now it's so much worse in IT: There is a continuing decline in the competence of the work force, but the pursuit of greed in the form of ROI drives the pursuit of outsourcing and looking for the bottom line in the short term. This contradicts the goal of the Annual Review which is supposed to be a method to insure quality workmanship.Well, folks, no one cares about quality any more -- you just generate a profit, take the money and run.And if you can't prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that you contributed to the bottom line in a significant way, you are at risk of being booted out; and the performance review sits there waiting to get you.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658489]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[premiertechnologist]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:58:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I think HR departments are looking for reasons to exist.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658513]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My company now has a quarterly review process but originally this was suppose to be a monthly review.  My first comment to HR was this is too often and the following year it became quarterly but it's still too much to me.  I'll be honest, I hate this stuff.  I've always tried to do my best where ever I worked and I'm pretty low maintenance, i.e. I don't need a lot of guidance or pats on the back.  The success of a project has always been my pat on the back and I know how I'm doing.  I agonize over filling out the forms with my goals, (how about my goal just being to do a good job?) my recent growth accomplishments, blah, blah, blah. Tell me you don't just make stuff up or use the same lines over and over.  I waste more time on this stuff than it's worth.  The best thing my department ever did was to get all of us together once a month at lunch and talk about how things are going.  Unfortunately it was decided we couldn't all go to lunch together any more, even though we all had phones and are 20 minutes away. I know this isn't &quot;PC&quot; but HR please get out of my way and let me do my job.I won't even mention the 15 minute extensive personality survey that I took on a web site to determine the &quot;type&quot; of person I am and how to relate to me.Are the nuts in charge everywhere?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658513]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rahn@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:44:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Good Riddance]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658486]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The formal appraisal only serves to keep the managers &quot;under control,&quot; and there are better ways to do that.  As an employee management tool, it has always been pretty worthless.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658486]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[fhawkins@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 06:38:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Set up and shot down]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658430]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[A &quot;core&quot; standard at our company is &quot;always solve the customers' problems.&quot; So, we always solve the customers' problems and then get rated as Average on the annual review because this is what is expected from everyone.  How does one improve upon &quot;always?&quot; So, now the company has the justification for granting only a minimum annual raise, if any at all: &quot;Your review was just average. You need to be above average to get more than a minimum.&quot; Bah.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658430]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DvT-Hex]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 21:52:28 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[performance reviews]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658405]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I agree that the recent trend of using &quot;fancy&quot; performance reviews with big time goal setting has only served to frustrate all involved. It's great to see a leader step up and challenge the polluted thinking of the horrendous yearly goal technique. For those who have a boss that is difficult; those bosses can only remember bad things from the past year and beat you to death on an annual basis because they can't or won't remember all the good things you did. I hope Adobe  shows that employee reviews can be more reasonable and profitable, like they were in years past.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658405]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[crcraft@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 20:17:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Right On!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658299]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As a long time Manager, I am definitely in favor of this.  Managers SHOULD be giving employees feedback through the year, as well as tracking goals, etc.  This makes any annual process really nothing more than a yearly summary for HR, which is to say it's a waste of time for both the employee and the Manager.For the sake of documenting justification for raises, I could see providing:-A single rating meant to indicate their overall caliber as an employee (meets, exceeds, outstanding, etc.)-A brief summary of their accomplishmentsNeither of these need involve the employee, however.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658299]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[BrianMWatson]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:07:06 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I worked under a different system.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658330]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I worked in an organization where everyone ran on statistics (sometimes called &quot;metrics&quot; by business administration types).Your statistic or statistics were supposed to measure your production. If you thought they didn't you could request a change in your statistic definition. Everyone had to keep track of their statistics and fibbing was a big non-no. If your stats were up, you had protection and were considered for promotion. If your stats were down you were given an opportunity to correct yourself and if that didn't work, a specialist would be called in to help you. If that still didn't work, then you might get let go, but were always supposed to get a &quot;re-entry program.&quot;It made for a sort of intense work experience but most of us had the impression that it was both fair and workable. No one likes to get fired for bad performance. But getting accused of &quot;bad performance&quot; without having proper records of what your performance really was is just asking for a situation where HR decisions are based on personality or connections rather than the employee's real worth to the company.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658330]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[l_e_cox]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:47:00 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Turn on the TV show the Office]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658289]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Want to get real time then lets all watch the Office. This just shows how &quot;The Board of Directors&quot; will try anything to attempt to be organized. Has anyone ever seen that perfect person get the perfect review other then them self of course. I pity the Reviewer.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658289]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dbrown@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:35:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[COLA]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658286]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[look's like a convenient way to dodge the yearly wage hike too. perhaps only the top 15% of employees will have the chutzpah to bring up the raise subject if there is no annual eval to trigger the discussion.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658286]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[why2for@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:59:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Real time feed back is best]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658300]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Being a senior IT manager, I find feed back, both good and bad to be most effective.  I do not disagree with goal setting and encourage my team members to do so, but that should be at an individual level.  Even though my company does go through the formal performance review process, that is not the way I personally gauge my direct team members.  IT professionals definitely respond to this type of real time interaction.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658300]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[cdasso45@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:38:55 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Performance reviews - Evil Necessity?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658281]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Glad to know Adobe has embraced this new thought process and hoping many more will follow them soon. Even though the review process is considered critical in an organisation to differentiate between the performing vs not performing, it has always been advantageous to the appraisers to decide the fate of the employees. Looking forward at this annual process with eagerness for a raise/promotion employees are more often left disappointed due to various reasons beyond their control. One day I wish to be part of such an organisation where I can breathe freely and stop  watching my step every day in order to not get a favorable review.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658281]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Chetzoo]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:01:53 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[A Manager's Perspective]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658267]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Many of the reviews (not all) seem to be written by direct reports, so here is a perspective from a manager.I mentor and train engineers and engineering managers in &quot;soft-skills&quot;. Before starting my own company, I spent 20 years in technical organizations as a technical direct report and later as manager/director/general manager. In my experience, many technical managers are uncomfortable giving performance reviews, and and most technical direct reports are uncomfortable receiving performance reviews. We would all like to go along our merry way, do our work, get paid, and let it go at that. Unfortunately, many managers do not know how to give constant feedback nor do they get training on giving constant feedback (Adobe apparently will train their managers). Many managers, like many engineers, feel that &quot;If I do my job, what do I need a performance review for?&quot;As a manager, I always gave my direct reports/team members both constant feedback and a yearly or 6-month performance review for the following reasons. If the direct report is doing well, then the constant feedback allows me to give immediate praise and appreciate in real-time, directly associated with the task at hand. The formal performance review allows me to discuss career development and give the &quot;formal organization&quot; a way to make a path for the person into the future.If things are not going so well, the constant feedback has to be tempered, otherwise it could demoralize the person, and so a fine line must be walked here. Unfortunately, many managers don't know how to do this and are uncomfortable in this role. The formal performance review, once again, allows the manager and the organization to perhaps move the direct report into an area where they may be more successful. After all, the job of a manager is to help their direct reports to be successful, and some need more help than others.If things are going really, really badly, then the formal reviews allow the HR department to understand the situation and prepare in case the employee needs to be transferred or let go, so that federal and state laws are adhered to.Although, as many of you have said, the Adobe info is sketchy, my guess is that they are still keeping something written and formal. I can't imagine that the HR department and the company can adhere to employee laws without something formal. In my experience, I used both constant informal and periodic formal reviews, and it was my job, as the manager, to ensure the direct report was successful, long-term... either in my organization or somewhere else.The real issue isn't the performance review. The real issue is that companies do not train their managers well in the interpersonal skills necessary to manage well. The general process is, &quot;You did your work really well, so you an probably manage people doing the same work... so now you are a manager.&quot;Be well,Steven Cerri]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658267]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[steven@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:30:26 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Performance Reviews? Really?!?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658227]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I've had to deal with performance reviews throughout my career and different jobs. I have seen some that are well put together and well written. The manager was interested in their staff and took the time to do a good job at writting them.  I have also seen the opposite as well.  I have also tried very hard to do right by my staff and provide them with a well written review to let them know where they stand.  I feel that I owe that to them. I also try very hard throughout the year to counsel them, good or bad and use them in their annual reviews.Reviews can be a good a tool to use if done correctly.  But, it takes a lot of work and eats up a lot of productions time.  You look for shortcuts, alot of cut &amp; paste if there is a lot of narrative work to do.  Then there is the format used and some of the review formats are really terrible to work with.  Some so narrow there is no way to really do a proper review. They look like they were put together at a brown bag luncheon as an afterthought and presented as the company format.  In all, reviews along with other traditional ways of doing business need to be changed to meet the changing world and its demands. If you don't use a tool and have no use for it you will usually get rid of it.  Maybe the same can be said for annual reviews.  Its time to get rid of them?So what will corporate Americal use next to burn up and waste our time with next?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658227]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wmitchel@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:11:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Bad Review is Bad - Productive Reviews are Good]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658243]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[While I think the formal review process is ridiculous and it shouldn't be done in a formal way, I do think that annual reviews are worthwhile when you honestly take the time to review yourself and each-other.We do annual reviews as a way to discuss goals, evaluate where we were with our goals from the previous review. Also, it is our time to give feedback to our leadership on what we think is working and what's not working and they really use that feedback.When you're in a company meeting and you hear one of the concerns you brought up is going to be getting tweaked based on feedback during reviews, not just cause you brought it up, but because it was a concern sited and acknowledged by many. It's very satisfying and makes the company feel like more of a team.I understand that many companies don't do reviews in this way, and it's more of a way for MBA managers to tick of a check list and come up with ways to shaft you on raises and bonuses.Just saying that done right, in the right setting it's a good way to truly evaluate yourself and the company year over year. I applaud Adobe for coming up with a way that works for a company of their size, but I hope they can come up with a way to track long term goals and efforts, not just shimming employee behavior.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-390515-3658243]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[kaizoman]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:49:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

