I'm not seeing what you're talking about. Can you be more specific?
Reluctantly, here are some thoughts. Reluctant, because ideally they’d be addressed privately to Jeff, not to this group. But you did ask.
In essence the core algorithm of the article comes down to:
- Employee rates self;
- Employee and reviewer discuss ratings;
- Reviewer rates employee;
- Employee rating stands.
At this moment the reader is all WTF, the employee rating stands??. What follows doesn’t help alleviate the WTF.
In particular this section:
… seems to be saying that there is a team rating. Are we talking about a single employee, rated by their team? If so, there’s 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 “Team rates itself”, etc ...
The quoted section goes on to refer to a number of “perceptions”: 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 “undefined term” messages.
Naturally, I can imagine an answer. the problem is, I can imagine many disparate ones, mostly wrong.
One candidate answer is: “either the employee or reviewer may make [un]substantiated claims about the views of other individuals or groups regarding the employee’s performance”. If I guess that, which seems a possibly sensible thing to do, I’m 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 isn’t part of this scheme.)
Another answer might be “use common sense”, which makes the questioner go away but each questioner goes away with a different answer in his head, since “common sense” 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 doesn’t meet the road.
If not now, when? -- Rabbi Hillel