On Fri, 11 Oct 1996, Archie Kregear wrote:
> 1. They objected to having to sign them. They think that if they cannot be
> anonymous then people will not be as honest as they might be in reviewing
> others.
I think the rationale to counter the above comment lies with the
philosophy of team that is/has been embraced by the group. Part of the
work I do with teams relates to the issue of personal responsibility as a
critical part of team performance (I suspect this is different than what
others do). So, The issue for me in this circumstance is how team members
see their roles (and values) within the team. If they do NOT hold the view
that they are responsible for honest, cooperative communication, then it
would seem to me that peer performance ratings are going to be
counter-productive. And, if they hold that view, then the issue of
anonymity is moot.
> 3. How can a new person evaluate someone who has been at the company for
> years.
I would assume that the evaluations would deal with a particular defined
period (eg. 1 year, 6 months), so I am not sure where the issue lies?
> 4. What training should be given to the team members. What if someone is
> not very tactful in how they answer?
Keeping in mind I am no expert, I would like to see cooperative
communication training (sorry, that's my thing), in addition to some work
on rating issues (halo effect, bias, etc). The latter need not be
technical, but will help people evaluate knowing that they may have their
own biases/agendas.
Robert Bacal - CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
Internet Address - dbt359@freenet.mb.ca
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. (204) 888-9290
Join us at our Resource Centre at: http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359
--Robert Bacal <dbt359@freenet.mb.ca>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>