More thinking on reviews
February 24, 2010
Posted by on
In my previous post I went on about reviews and increases every 3 months (or every month for that matter). I was reading this article and realized that I hadn’t thought about my assumptions.
I had assumed your increase was solely dependant on your performance (as I believe it should be). As we all know this is a false belief, usually our increases are predetermined by company performance and politics that are way beyond our control. The usual story I hear is the company (because then there isn’t a person to blame but an entire organisation of red tape) has decided that increases will be (x)% for extraordinary performance, (x-2)% for average performance and (x-4)% for poor performance. Fantastic – so regardless of what I’ve personally done (completed multiple degrees, moved mountains, saved company millions) I will fall into a bucket with a x% increase, alongside Joe Blog who just moved 1 mole hill.
Another assumption was that I was largely working in the infamous ideal world, where everyone gets along and understands what is happening. But that’s not true either and the two people discussing this (me and my boss) are at odds. The boss wants to discuss my performance, whereas I want to discuss (or negotiate) my increase.
So – scratch previous post and thoughts – I think there should be a 100% PURE performance talk once a month, and then, in a completely separate meeting (and I still think this should happen every 3 months), a 100% PURE compensation talk. This should correlate with my performance reviews but not BE a performance review.
Why do conversations that are somehow relating to money always get so itchy and scratchy?
Why do we give money so much power over our lives?