The time of year for 'what do we do in the summer?' approaches the City. As ever, budgets get reviewed, strategy gets decided and some places do appraisals too - anything to while away the hours until September.
'360' appraisals are now in vogue as they waste even more peoples' time and can provide excuses to sack managers who are normally hard and expensive to get rid of. I wonder if Gordon Brown ever had 360 appraisals when he was Prime Minister from the No 10 staff?
So to kick off - some classic appraisal feedback below, ever had any of it?
"Since my last report, this employee has reached rock bottom and has started to dig."
"His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity."
"I would not allow this employee to breed."
"This associate is really not so much of a has-been, but more of a definitely won't be."
"Works well when under constant supervision and cornered like a rat in a trap."
"When she opens her mouth, it seems that this is only to change whichever foot was previously in there."
"He would be out of his depth in a parking lot puddle."
"This young lady has delusions of adequacy."
"He sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them."
"This employee should go far - and the sooner he starts, the better."
"This employee is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot."
A clueless, skiving and completely useless temp whom I didn't renew 'for budgetary reasons' after 12 weeks asked for an open reference. Since she was thick as well, I was happy to write " ... and during this time I have found (name) to be as diligent as she is industrious. (Name) will function well in a post that matches her particular abilities."
ReplyDeleteI couldn't quite look her in the eye when she thanked me effusively.
"I would not allow this employee to breed"
ReplyDeleteAwwww (LOL)
I once gave a gentleman the following rating: "he is not going to set the world on fire, but if it should catch light, he would find the extinguisher & put it out"
ReplyDeleteI got the biggest bollocking of my life.
"She would be more suited to work in a hospital, where her very many and varied ailments can provide topics for research papers."
ReplyDeleteAnd left for BQ on an employers feedback appraisal form.
ReplyDelete"Any other information that you feel may be of relevance and would help us in the future.."
"I didn't much like the soup."
friend of mine, giving a 'to-whom-it-may-concern' reference for a useless au pair who'd just (thankfully) given notice, wrote:
ReplyDeleteMaria has been with us for 6 weeks, and now feels qualified to move up to more demanding responsibilities
one imagines that prospective employers were able to decode
"I don't have the words to describe xxxxx's astonishing performance."
ReplyDelete"If there are two people in a room and one of them looks bored, then he's the other one"
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, why are we still stuck with 360 degree appraisals? Why not go to 720 degree appraisals for those employees who always give 200 per cent?
Many years ago I worked in pyramid shaped organisation. The Big Cheese was always off at golf conf..., er, policy meetings, and so the office was under the daily supervision of his deputy, a belligerent 5ft 6in shortarse who delighted in throwing his weight around and generally being a pain in the butt to everybody below him. When he was on leave the atmosphere in the place was happy and cheerful, but when he returned it was like a dark cloud descending and everyone clammed up and became generally miserable,
ReplyDeleteOne day at one of his "policy meetings" the boss was told about 360* appraising and decided to investigate further so he called in a firm of 'management consultants' to draw up the paperwork. Shortly thereafter, every employee received a questionnaire, to be completed anonymously and returned in sealed envelopes to the MCs, about how their line managers and other senior officers managed and treated them on a daily basis. There was also a space for "other comments".
When the results were announced, Mr Shortarse was quite astonished to discover that he was universally disliked and was the most unpopular member of staff. For a month or two after that his behaviour improved slightly, but it was not long before he reverted to type. We were all happy not long afterwards to see him transferred to a different branch of the organisation.
True story, my first employer wrote on my reference "Herr Wadsworth ist immer ruhig and ausgeglichen", which translates roughly as "Mr W is always calm and balanced" which is presumably code for something awful, but I never found out what?
ReplyDeleteWV: bilans
Yes MW, I had some of those.
ReplyDelete- Considered {scared}
- Thoughtful {terrified}
&
- Measuered aggressor assaulter -{ No idea: Probably meant idiot.}
I can only match this by showing you an job application which was once forwarded to me a few years back.
ReplyDeleteIt read as follows:
NAME: Mr xxxxx Bulmash
DESIRED POSITION: Reclining. HA But seriously, whatever's available. If I was in a position to be picky, I wouldn't be applying here in the first place.
DESIRED SALARY: $185,000 a year plus stock options and a Michael Ovitz style severance package. If that's not possible make an offer and we can haggle.
EDUCATION: Yes.
LAST POSITION HELD: Target for middle management hostility.
SALARY: Less than I'm worth.
MOST NOTABLE ACHIEVEMENT: My incredible collection of stolen pens and post-it notes.
REASON FOR LEAVING: It sucked.
HOURS AVAILABLE TO WORK: Any.
PREFERRED HOURS: 1:30-3:30 p.m., Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIAL SKILLS?: Yes, but they're better suited to a more intimate environment.
MAY WE CONTACT YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER?: If I had one, would I be here?
DO YOU HAVE A CAR?: I think the more appropriate question here would be "Do you have a car that runs?"
HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY SPECIAL AWARDS OR RECOGNITION?: I may already be a winner of the Publishers Clearinghouse Sweepstakes.
DO YOU SMOKE?: Only when set on fire.
WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE DOING IN FIVE YEARS?: Living in the Bahamas with a fabulously wealthy super model who thinks I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread. Actually, I'd like to be doing that now.
DO YOU CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE?: No, but I dare you to prove otherwise.
In ancient days, a certain amount of dosh was set aside for X's staff, X decided how it would be apportioned, and they were called in once a year or once every six months to be told
ReplyDeletea) you're crap OR
b) you're average OR
c) you're good.
Then appraisals came in, be they 360 or 180. X still only has a certain amount for his staff, but they now have to spend a lot of time (and waste a lot of other people's) writing long documents blowing their own trumpet and getting supporting evidence from their mates.
The final outcomes are roughly the same as to who gets what, the "blue eyes factor" can (as ever) apply - the main difference is that the new method wastes so much of so many people's time.
And the exact details of the system change every year, as the HR department need to justify their existence.