are *all* HR people complete fucking morons?, i just got this email. Options

[PRIMECHUQ]

i just got this.

Hello All-
For the purpose of performance appraisals, I recently learned that we’ve been rating people too high on the scale of Outstanding, Exceeds, Meets, Needs Improvement and Does Not Meet. This will not change anyone’s merit raises in any way! We just have to accept that “Meets” actually means you’re doing a good/great job on the competency or in general. If an employee is performing very well in his/her position, this is a “Meets.”
An overall “Exceeds” should only be used for someone who really excels beyond doing a great job, someone who should be promoted. In other words, we should never use “Outstanding.”
Please adjust the final, signed performance appraisals to reflect this. My performance appraisal will be adjusted as well.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

it bothers me that HR tells people that they cannot possibly rate someone too high. morons. I cant stand HR people who dont know the fucking business or the people yet try to tell managers how to rate their people. and if you dont want it used DONT PUT IN ON THE FUCKING FORM.

sorry

/rant

[Chachi in Charge]

That is ridiculous.

[PRIMECHUQ]

That is ridiculous.

i am fighting every urge not to reply "are you a fucking idiot?!"

[Thunder Horse]

what's that saying again ?

those that can't do, teach

those that can't teach, do HR ?

[widget]

they do this here at NEU as well. We are rated 1-5 but the policy is that you cannot be rated a 5.
She rates me at 4.5

[ƒ(x)]

How about the idea that 70% of employees are rated at "meets", 10% at "poor", and 20% at "Exceeds". That means that you have to rate a certain number of employees as low despite their actual performace.

[PRIMECHUQ]

How about the idea that 70% of employees are rated at "meets", 10% at "poor", and 20% at "Exceeds". That means that you have to rate a certain number of employees as low despite their actual performace.

DINGDING! the true reason behind this idiocy. used for the purposes of funding and the ability to can people as budget demands. i dont wanna get back into this shit. i really dont.

This post has been edited by PRIMECHUQ: May 3 2007, 01:24 PM

[ZiggyBoofa]

i just got this.

Hello All-
For the purpose of performance appraisals, I recently learned that we’ve been rating people too high on the scale of Outstanding, Exceeds, Meets, Needs Improvement and Does Not Meet. This will not change anyone’s merit raises in any way! We just have to accept that “Meets” actually means you’re doing a good/great job on the competency or in general. If an employee is performing very well in his/her position, this is a “Meets.”
An overall “Exceeds” should only be used for someone who really excels beyond doing a great job, someone who should be promoted. In other words, we should never use “Outstanding.”
Please adjust the final, signed performance appraisals to reflect this. My performance appraisal will be adjusted as well.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

I kid you not, we got the same, almost verbatim, message last week.

[Empathy]

Wow.


Just... wow.

"If I die sitting at my desk, does that qualify me for 'Outstanding'? The tradeoff is that my productivity would sharply decline, but at least you wouldn't have to pay my benefits anymore!

P.S. - Did you actually read this before you sent it? Please read it again. If it still makes sense, please kill yourself immediately."

[PRIMECHUQ]

Wow.
Just... wow.

"If I die sitting at my desk, does that qualify me for 'Outstanding'? The tradeoff is that my productivity would sharply decline, but at least you wouldn't have to pay my benefits anymore!

P.S. - Did you actually read this before you sent it? Please read it again. If it still makes sense, please kill yourself immediately."

i should cut and paste this into a reply

[grampthrather]

So, let me guess, in other words they expected/needed to find a naturally occurring bell curve to the performance appraisals with a peak at "meets," didn't find it, and now want everyone to artificially alter their reports so that HR can feel like the company is staffed properly?

[Electric Larry]

Jesus Christ.
That reads like a 1970s elementary school grading system. Perhaps they should just put smiley and star stickers on your pay stub instead of money into it.
The very idea of Human Rescources is like hiring crossing guards to work a NASCAR track.

[J_GuestNoMore]

My mother used to work for a government agency. Her office was small 8-10 dedicated people who she rated highly. She got the same call/memo saying not everyone can be that high. She told HR to fuck off.

Way to go Mom.

[plcmat]

i just got this.

Hello All-
For the purpose of performance appraisals, I recently learned that we’ve been rating people too high on the scale of Outstanding, Exceeds, Meets, Needs Improvement and Does Not Meet. This will not change anyone’s merit raises in any way! We just have to accept that “Meets” actually means you’re doing a good/great job on the competency or in general. If an employee is performing very well in his/her position, this is a “Meets.”
An overall “Exceeds” should only be used for someone who really excels beyond doing a great job, someone who should be promoted. In other words, we should never use “Outstanding.”
Please adjust the final, signed performance appraisals to reflect this. My performance appraisal will be adjusted as well.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

it bothers me that HR tells people that they cannot possibly rate someone too high. morons. I cant stand HR people who dont know the fucking business or the people yet try to tell managers how to rate their people. and if you dont want it used DONT PUT IN ON THE FUCKING FORM.

sorry

/rant

This makes perfect sense to me. No doubt members of the emerging self-esteem generation were whining too much about being considered "acceptable" and viewing that as a big negative instead of what it means: you're doing a good job, you could do better, but you're fine. I must be outstanding, everyone always told me I was outstanding, waaaaaah

[grampthrather]

So, let me guess, in other words they expected/needed to find a naturally occurring bell curve to the performance appraisals with a peak at "meets," didn't find it, and now want everyone to artificially alter their reports so that HR can feel like the company is staffed properly?

Or: what f(x) more succinctly said.

[PRIMECHUQ]

This makes perfect sense to me. No doubt members of the emerging self-esteem generation were whining too much about being considered "acceptable" and viewing that as a big negative instead of what it means: you're doing a good job, you could do better, but you're fine. I must be outstanding, everyone always told me I was outstanding, waaaaaah

which is perfectly acceptable. but you cannot tell me I am limited in how I can rate someone *if they deserve it*. HR people assume other people dont know how to evaluate their employees worth.

[Christóbal]

Yep we've got the same bullshit here too. HR Policies are designed to piss people off.

[Chachi in Charge]

i am fighting every urge not to reply "are you a fucking idiot?!"

I don't blame you. If they replaced "never" with "almost never" about Outstanding in that e-mail, it would be nowhere near as ridiculous but still pretty bad.

Agreed there must have been some confusion and whining or something driving it for that to even go out.

[m.f.]

[ImIdaho]

which is perfectly acceptable. but you cannot tell me I am limited in how I can rate someone *if they deserve it*. HR people assume other people dont know how to evaluate their employees worth.

Basically what they're saying is, you're promoting too many people, and we want to suck as much out of all these peons as we can and pay out as little as possible, so unless a person can engineer the likes of the fucking Death Star, then they merely meet standards.

[PRIMECHUQ]

I don't blame you. If they replaced "never" with "almost never" about Outstanding in that e-mail, it would be nowhere near as ridiculous but still pretty bad.

Agreed there must have been some confusion and whining or something driving it for that to even go out.

I'm gonna go take a dump on her desk and then say "peace out"


edit: i've cooled off now but my god that annoyed the fuck out of me.

This post has been edited by PRIMECHUQ: May 3 2007, 01:35 PM

[guest_bob]

i am fighting every urge not to reply "are you a fucking idiot?!"

that would exceed my expectations for you ...but i'm giving any merit raises ...

[PRIMECHUQ]

Basically what they're saying is, you're promoting too many people, and we want to suck as much out of all these peons as we can and pay out as little as possible, so unless a person can engineer the likes of the fucking Death Star, then they merely meet standards.

no one on that team has ever been promoted. ever. to get my promotion i had to move to a new organization in the division.

This post has been edited by PRIMECHUQ: May 3 2007, 01:36 PM

[Empathy]

[anatomicallyincorrect]

what's that saying again ?

those that can't do, teach

those that can't teach, do HR ?

Those that can't teach, teach gym.

- Woody Allen