Win win situation for team and individual.
better balance.
Post by Ron Jeffries ***@acm.org [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT]Hi Charles,
On May 26, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Charles Bradley - Professional Scrum Trainer
I'm not seeing what you're talking about. Can you be more specific?
Reluctantly, here are some thoughts. Reluctant, because ideally theyâd be
addressed privately to Jeff, not to this group. But you did ask.
1. Employee rates self;
2. Employee and reviewer discuss ratings;
3. Reviewer rates employee;
4. *Employee rating stands.*
At this moment the reader is all *WTF, the employee rating stands??*.
What follows doesnât help alleviate the WTF.
The higher rating supercedes the lower. If the reviewer gives a 4 and the
team gives a 7, it is a 7 and so forth. This review is a form of 360 degree
feedback where the review process is designed to surface gross disparities
between market perception, customer perception, company perception, team
perception, reviewer perception, and individual employee perception of
their performance. Gross disparities are rare and should be dealt with on
an exception basis.
⊠seems to be saying that there is a team rating. Are we talking about a
single employee, rated by their team? If so, thereâs something missing
above? Are we talking suddenly about how to rate a whole team (which could
be a good review idea)? If so, then the first part should have said âTeam
rates itselfâ, etc ...
The quoted section goes on to refer to a number of âperceptionsâ: market,
customer, company, team, reviewer, individual. (Likely this should have
been a new paragraph.) Either way,t the procedure itself only addresses
what the reviewer and the individual do. Somehow a whole bunch of people
seem to have popped into the equation. Compiler explodes with âundefined
termâ messages.
Naturally, I can *imagine* an answer. the problem is, I can imagine many
disparate ones, mostly wrong.
One candidate answer is: âeither the employee or reviewer may make
[un]substantiated claims about the views of other individuals or groups
regarding the employeeâs performanceâ. If I guess that, which seems a
possibly sensible thing to do, Iâm still left with a huge gap in
understanding how those claims would be created, used, assessed, or
adjudicated. It also puts quite a burden on the other people involved,
since in fairness, the employee and the reviewer should both be engaged in
getting this information. (Together, one would have hoped, but together
isnât part of this scheme.)
Another answer might be âuse common senseâ, which makes the questioner go
away but each questioner goes away with a different answer in his head,
since âcommon senseâ is never common and often not sense.
Overall, in my opinion, the article leaves too much to the imagination,
which means that this advice will be used, if at all, in random unintended
ways. The rubber doesnât meet the road.
Ron Jeffries
ronjeffries.com
If not now, when? -- Rabbi Hillel