Employee Self Evaluations

Had to do these once a year working for one of the "BIG BOX" engineering firms (affectionately called the "Dark Side" by my co-workers). I always gave myself the highest evaluation as possible.

Nonsense.

They probably are a waste of time for the fully closed-minded, know-it-all type employee. However in that case it may well be helpful to the manager for the insight into understanding how the employee sees himself.

In addition, an evaluation may provide the metric for some employees to open their eyes as to what management expectations are. I.e. some employees may not know what they don't know, and a well prepared questionnaire may provide that revelation.

Regardless, an open-minded and progressive individual will usually find value in stepping back and looking at one's self in retrospective.

I do - and I evaluate the self evaluations done by my 30 employees in my dept. They're all worthless, as far as what gets filed.

Maybe it caused them to think for 10 minutes about their professional path, but if they need a piece of paper to do that then I'm not doing my job to begin with.

I strive to inspire and instill ambition in my dept.

No amount of policies or procedures can make up for crappy management and/or employees.

Aren't these evaluations reviewed and discussed with employee and supervisor at a convenient time?

Of course, if it's just a yearly piece of paper that goes into a yearly folder and everyone in management feels that way, the evaluation is not really effective.

Same idea with the safety stuff. If management does not believe in, the program will not be very successful. Workers will fill up the paper work but everyone knows it's a CYA exercise.

Everyone should be doing self-evaluations. Just don't put anything down on paper.

I find the self evaluation helpful in determining the best approach to help the employee understand the areas that need improvement. I believe that if I bring up an issue at the Annual Evaluation that is a surprise that I need to do a self evaluation and determine if I let them down. On a few occasions, I determined that the employee was so clueless that we needed to part company. On other occasions, I have decided that I had let them down by not being clear with my expectations. If both parties enter the evaluation process objectively, both the employee and the supervisor should learn and improve.

That's exactly it. You get out of what you put into it. If you think its stupid, then that's what you'll get in return. Myself, I take them seriously and both my upper managers and subordinate employees do get some benefit.

And why not put them on paper? There is benefit to documentation of individual development plans. For instance, if the evaluation process identifies a deficiency, and time does not correct it, that documentation may be invaluable in the corrective action process. Especially where employee unions are concerned.

> Is it just me, or are these about the dumbest thing in the world? ... The whole exercise just seems pointless to me.
The trouble is not the self evaluations, it's that they are too often used as a substitute for actual management feedback. I'm at a new job, and we are doing self evaluations this month. I've done them before, of course. It does usually lead to a sit down with a manager, which can be valuable.

Is it okay for your goals to be to collect 26 paychecks with a minimum of drama? In reality, it often is.

> Back to my TPS reports (I have to try and remember to include the cover letter).
I'll get you a copy of that memo.....

Never mind the noise. What is important to management is what they are actually willing to spend their time and their money on. Watch for that. Give little weight to what they say if they aren't following up with time and money.

> > Give little weight to what they say if they aren't following up with time and money.

I'll second that. I once worked for a company that expressed a "commitment to technology". The part they left out was that they were committed to keep using what they had purchased 10 years ago for another 10 years. 😉

For entry-level rodman-type employees my goal is to hire half of the 26 paycheck drama-free type and the other half to be i-men in training.

Career rodmen can be worth their weight in gold when high production is needed.

Sadly, the bigger part of the challenge for entry-level guys is finding that combination of clean driving record and can pass a drug test.

> ....No amount of policies or procedures can make up for crappy management and/or employees.

Though I understand what you are saying, I respectfully disagree with your bold statement.

The procedure for crappy management and/or employees needs to be either training, probationary period, or termination. Probably in that order.

If you have people that are well motivated having policies will serve the purpose of the policy.

If you have people that are motivated just enough, once they are on the training, probationary period, or termination track they will get off the track before the last step.

If you have people that are not motivated, then they will no longer be your problem, they will be your competitors employee (problem).

Mostly I mean hire good people to begin with, and you needn't try to "push a rope".

You can't policy someone into caring about their life, and if they care about their life they don't need a policy. Seems obvious to me.

I'm not poo pooing all policies (vehicle/equipment maintenance, checklists, etc.), merely stating that they will not compensate for character deficiencies.

> Mostly I mean hire good people to begin with, and you needn't try to "push a rope".
>
> You can't policy someone into caring about their life, and if they care about their life they don't need a policy. Seems obvious to me.
>
> I'm not poo pooing all policies (vehicle/equipment maintenance, checklists, etc.), merely stating that they will not compensate for character deficiencies.

You are absolutely right about not being able to get someone else to care about their life. I think we are mostly on the same page. I just feel like (and most people know this) sometimes it is pretty hard to know what someone is like until after they are hired. And if you get one of the bad ones, you need a way to get them up to par, or out of the office. Personally, I feel like the best way to be sure of that is, everyone (from day one) know the expectations, or policy whatever it's called, and abide by it. If they fall short of it then "bye". If there is no policy, there is nothing to say to them "Hey you fell short, so I have to let you go."

There are definitely those that you don't know about until too late. I've been lucky that most I rolled the dice on impressed me. I don't hesitate to let people go if they muck up the morale/culture, though.

I've let people go that were technically proficient and at least average producers (if not above), they just couldn't play well with others. You have to get along to go along.

I've said it on here before, if you have an employee that requires 90% of your "management" they need to go. Same goes for clients.

How does the saying go again? Something like:

Hire too quickly and fire too slowly