View Full Version : Is a 'Satisfactory' rating really satisfactory?
11-11-2001, 04:15 PM
Or should I look for a new job? The catagories for my 3 month performance evaluation are: Unacceptable, Needs Improvement, Satisfactory, Very Good and Exceptional. My supervisor didn't give me any negative feedback in the evaluation but never rated me above Satisfactory. I feel like I just got a C on a test. Should I ask her why when we discuss the evaluation on Tuesday?
11-11-2001, 04:21 PM
You probably should ask her during the interview if there's things she would like to see you do which could increase your rating.
As for what is meant by "Satisfactory", that's going to vary from company to company and manager to manager. In my company, satisfactory would be fine. Not everyone can be in the top 10% of staff. As long as you communicate with your boss and grow in your job, you should be fine. But only she can define it accurately for you.
11-11-2001, 04:32 PM
Sometimes your rating is a reflection of your boss'.
If she got Satisfactory, do you think she'll give higher to anyone else?
Yes, look for a new job. Even if your boss is being "fair" and you are smack in the middle of the pack, she should know that "grade inflation" is the way to go. Making "above average" the norm is just common sense to motivate people. Ratings are free. Hiring and training replacements isn't. If she can't do the math, it will also show up in other ways, so don't wait for more disappointments down the line.
11-11-2001, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by completely-knackered
Even if your boss is being "fair" and you are smack in the middle of the pack, she should know that "grade inflation" is the way to go. Making "above average" the norm is just common sense to motivate people. Ratings are free. Hiring and training replacements isn't.
Hmmm, possibly. Since Shawna said it was a 3-month performance evaluation, are they given that often or was it something tied to a new hire, i.e. feedback during a probationary period?
"Grade inflation" often ISN'T possible, or advisable, or free if merit increases are on the line. That math can be really brutal: usually limited amounts of money to be apportioned out fairly. That's my main quibble and I'm not sure it even applies here.
But no matter what, the supervisor's lack of concrete documentation and feedback sucks. It's only fair to lay out very clearly what's expected and what needs to be done to meet those expectations. This is a WAG, Shawna, but sounds to me like the supervisor just didn't put enough real thought or effort into it so you ended up with a default "so-so" rating.
I'd suggest asking her about it--not challenging--just saying you really want to do a good job so what can you do to improve? Warning: she may get defensive. The whole damned POINT of an evaluation is to get useful feedback going in both directions. It was her job to get the process rollin' and she blew it. Use all the tact ya got but keep your radar humming. If she evades again, smile, thank her anyway and quietly start looking around. You're still collecting a paycheck and experience. Besides, the best time to look for a job is while you already have one.
Good luck, Shawna, and don't take it to heart. As devastating as they can be, carelessly written performance evaluations only reflect on the writer. The simple fact that you're concerned and want to do better convinces me you're a peach of an employee. Someday, probably sooner than you think, you'll be the one nurtering other folks along. You'll build on this and do it RIGHT in your own turn.
11-11-2001, 05:46 PM
I've wondered about this exact thing.
I get "satisfactory" each time on my job evaluations. It bugs me fo a moment, but I've decided not to worry about it too much. I think you have to consider the source, and also consider what they would want you to do in order to be "very good". Sometimes it's just not worth it.
In my case, I strongly suspect that in order to get a higher rating, I'd have to do a lot of overtime, and work my days off. I don't want to do that. They manipulate other people into working hellish hours (making them feel guilty) and I just won't fall for that. So I think that's why I get a mere "satisfactory". Sure, there are probably other things too that I could improve (I am not perfect) but I doubt I'm sub-par. I just think they see me as the bitch who won't give up my weekends, and work 16 hour shifts. So I deserve no better than "satisfactory". Fine with me.
11-11-2001, 06:29 PM
Ugh you have been reduced to a tick in a box , poor you , maybe you should ask for some qualatative notes instead , sure it will put your supervisor's work load up say a few 1000% but i'm not sure it adds a feeling you are a person not a tick in a box.
11-11-2001, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by shawa
Or should I look for a new job? The catagories for my 3 month performance evaluation are: Unacceptable, Needs Improvement, Satisfactory, Very Good and Exceptional. My supervisor didn't give me any negative feedback in the evaluation but never rated me above Satisfactory. I feel like I just got a C on a test. Should I ask her why when we discuss the evaluation on Tuesday? [/B]
I wouldn't bother. It's been my experience is that performance reviews are bullshit. More often than not, they are simply formal tools used by a manager to let you know he/she doesn't like you.
90% of the time it seems that promotions and layoffs are not tied to performance, but to the whims of management and HR.
For example, I've been with my firm for about 3 months and and I still have to fill out a performance review. So what is my perfomanced based on? Weeks of attending corporate training classes, a couple of busywork projects for some partners, and weeks and weeks of sitting around the office waiting to be assigned a client. So really any perfomance rating I would recieve is based on whether my manager likes my tie or taste in music or similar inane stuff.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.