Yesterday, I received written commentary on my first ever performance review and I must say that I am quite disappointed at the result. Although I have not had the chance to meet with my supervisor to clarify the context of the evaluation (that meeting is scheduled for later on today), the written commentary on this review does allude to one undeniable fact: I am in fact not God’s greatest gift to mankind. Okay, I jest a bit, that is not actually the revelation. The written commentary on my performance evaluation revealed to me that there is indeed a disconnect between what I believe I present to the company and what the company perceives that I have to offer; that is, what I consider an honest assessment of my strengths and weaknesses differ from what was revealed through this performance review.
In the performance evaluation, the rating system is broken down into five distinct rating scales although an individual’s score can fall within the ranges. The scales are also assigned brief descriptions for clarification.
5 = Mastery Exceptional work standards
4 = Strength Significantly exceeds the standard, minimal need for development
3 = Skilled Consistently meets the standard, room for development
2 = Needs Focus Below standard, improvement is needed
1 – Insufficient Significantly below the standard, immediate improvement is needed
I received an average of 3.6 with the lowest score of 3.2 given in “Dependability” (Follows instructions and completes work in a timely manner) and the highest score of 4.0 being a tie between “Quality of Work” (Amount of work completed in relation to the standard) and “Reliability” (Punctual, high attendance level). What concerns me most is that if I were to give an honest evaluation of my strengths, I would have highly ranked Dependability as high among that list.
The problem arises in that when I am presented with an ever increasing workload, I try never to turn work down. Instead I find ways to fit it into my schedule and complete the assigned tasks no matter how strained my schedule already is. I actually considered this to be one of my greatest strength in that when there is work to be done; I am first in line to take the reins to attempt to complete it. As such, I usually find myself pressed for time and I try to complete all the work in the most efficient way that I know how; assigning a level of perceived urgency to each matter and I proceed to work first on the tasks that require the earliest deadline and/or turnaround time.
I had always thought this worked perfectly, but as evident from the evaluation, the reality is far from the case. Rather than what I believe I exude, a can-do attitude, what is seen by my superiors is a constant oversight in completing ‘lower priority assignments’. While I do not deny this is the case, I always presumed that there was an understanding that the lower assignments would be shifted in order to make room for the emergencies that are currently my main focus. After all, would it not be a great hindrance to ignore the larger more priority assignment in order to take the time to complete lower (and always plentiful) lower priority assignment.
It is obvious that if I need to resolve this disconnect, I will need to delve deeper into its underlying cause. This evaluation meeting will provide an excellent opportunity to hear the basis of this evaluation and try to find a mutual ground between my perception and reality. I would have appreciated this conversation a while ago rather than eighteen months after my initial hire date, but it is better late than never. If this was indeed an on-going problem as the evaluation has led me to believe, it would have been prudent to have been made aware of it early and act of correct it early rather than eighteen month later. At the very least though, I do appreciate that I am now given a chance to improve my perception around the office and I plan to take the lessons of the evaluation to heart.
Another interesting point that I hope to receive clarification on during the meeting with my supervisor is this comment that was left in the “Work Demeanor” section. Occasionally, however, Shane fails to discern the nuances of maintaining an appropriate deferential yet collegial working relationship with his immediate supervisor. Rather than let my mind wonder as to how and why my supervisor could have derived this conclusion, I will keep an open mind as I have already been made aware that my actions are not always as received as I had intended.
