Performance Evaluations

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Salomone - 16 Apr 2005 21:57 GMT

How are your annual performance evaluations done?
Do you use a scale (0 - 5) on how well you perform tasks, or is it a
generalized narrative from the immediate supervisor handed over to the
director?
Is it qualitative (generally exceeds expectations) or quantitative (three
negative critical incidents, one positive critical incident this review
period)?
Are supervisors graded separately or just with additional criteria?
Are generalists given brownie points for being so versitile, are those who
participate in the system's volunteerism groups, (extracurricular activities
if you will)?

How are you judged in competency? (Peer review, CAP proficiency samples get
passed around)

I am trying to get outside input.
M Hennessey B.S. MT(ASCP)

Reply to this Message

Dave L - 17 Apr 2005 06:51 GMT

> How are your annual performance evaluations done?
> Do you use a scale (0 - 5) on how well you perform tasks, or is it a
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> I am trying to get outside input.
> M Hennessey B.S. MT(ASCP)

This is how it will be done in the UK - have a fun read

http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAn
dGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4090843&chk=dyrb
/a

Dave

Reply to this Message

Annie - 17 Apr 2005 08:52 GMT

> > How are your annual performance evaluations done?
> > Do you use a scale (0 - 5) on how well you perform tasks, or is it a
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> >
> This is how it will be done in the UK - have a fun read

http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAn
dGuidance/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidanceArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4090843&chk=dyrb
/a

> Dave

...... and when you figure out what they are on about and how it will
ACTUALLY work among staff who are getting more p*ssed off by the moment with
Agenda for Change and Pension changes which are coming into force.....
please let us know!

Annie :o)

Reply to this Message

Dave L - 17 Apr 2005 12:09 GMT

> ...... and when you figure out what they are on about and how it will
> ACTUALLY work among staff who are getting more p*ssed off by the moment
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Annie :o)

Come on they have to increase to pension age to allow enough time for your
job to be matched.

Dave

Reply to this Message

Annie - 17 Apr 2005 13:31 GMT

> > ...... and when you figure out what they are on about and how it will
> > ACTUALLY work among staff who are getting more p*ssed off by the moment
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Dave

How are things getting along in other labs? My lab has been given a final
date of "very soon" to get all JDs agreed with staff. MLAs and BMS1s have
been agreed so far but none have been sent off. BMS2s are looking at their
final versions at the moment and I've no idea what's happening with the
BMS3s or the BMS4.

Annie

Reply to this Message

Pamela and Howard Signa - 17 Apr 2005 16:09 GMT

We do an annual review with competency based orientation. We just developed
this,. Supervisors are graded on more criteria. I have a copy of hte one
that I developed for our lab if anyone is interested.

> > > ...... and when you figure out what they are on about and how it will
> > > ACTUALLY work among staff who are getting more p*ssed off by the moment
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Annie

Reply to this Message

Salomone - 17 Apr 2005 17:02 GMT

Please send me your info. One of my points is the misapplication of the
elusive perfect 5 of 5 in scaled scoring. No one actually gets a 5, because
then you would be perfect and you would have nothing to work harder for. So
getting a 5 is like spotting a yeti. Not to mention it could cause "error of
central tendency". It needs to be modified with more objective, quantifiable
methods.
Well, some people have put in their 20 -30 years and have maxed out their
salary and promotablity.
So, no, they really do have nothing to work harder for. Except adding funds
to their deferred compensation pensions and Individual retirement accounts.

Which is another question- NHS laboratories are governmental so employees
are bound to their whims in benefits?
As opposed to privately / profit based laboratories that may be able to be
more competitive or offer diverse options?
(clue in the American please)
; )
M Hennessey

> We do an annual review with competency based orientation. We just
> developed
> this,. Supervisors are graded on more criteria. I have a copy of hte one
> that I developed for our lab if anyone is interested.

Reply to this Message

JEDilworth - 17 Apr 2005 18:30 GMT

I have to laugh, because that's really how it is. You've hit the nail on
the head, at least in the US of A...I hear you loud and clear.

Judy Dilworth, M.T. (ASCP)
Microbiology 31 years

> Please send me your info. One of my points is the misapplication of the
> elusive perfect 5 of 5 in scaled scoring. No one actually gets a 5, because
> then you would be perfect and you would have nothing to work harder for. So
> getting a 5 is like spotting a yeti. Not to mention it could cause "error of
> central tendency". It needs to be modified with more objective, quantifiable
> methods. Well, some people have put in their 20 -30 years and have

maxed out their

> salary and promotablity. So, no, they really do have nothing to work

harder for. Except adding funds to their deferred compensation pensions
and Individual retirement accounts.

Reply to this Message

Mike Collins - 17 Apr 2005 18:45 GMT

> Which is another question- NHS laboratories are governmental so
> employees are bound to their whims in benefits?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> ; )
> M Hennessey

Pay scales and pensions are national. (The NHS is the third largest employer
in the world after the Chinese army and Indian Railways according to an
Agenda for Change meeting I attended)
Employer and employee both contribute to the pension scheme.
Current pension scheme gives a lump sum and 39/40ths of final salary linked
to the retail price index for every year worked with a retirement age of 60.
So after 40 years you get almost half pay.
New scheme will give 60% of average salary but no lump sum with a retirement
age of 65
New scheme will begin with those who retire in 2013 and is causing a lot of
trouble.
It's very unlikely that a private lab will offer better.

Signature

Mike Collins
UK
Mike&heather-at-oakwellmount-dot-freeserve-dot-co-dot-uk

Reply to this Message

Dave L - 17 Apr 2005 17:56 GMT

> How are things getting along in other labs? My lab has been given a final
> date of "very soon" to get all JDs agreed with staff. MLAs and BMS1s have
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Annie

Much the same with us.
Last I heard (most of the staff are in a different section on another site)
that BMS1s were just about sorted after a few word changes which in reality
were mostly changes for the sake of change.
One problem was that the lab manager had written generic JDs for those
qualified with less than 3 yrs experience and then one for experienced
rotational BMS1s. Most of the heads of sections though decided to go with
the experienced rotational JD for all staff and this led to the experienced
staff thinking they were being given a lower JD when in fact it was the
newly qualified being bumped up.
A spanner did get thrown into a local lab when a BMS1 JD was unofficially
matched by a job matcher from another trust who pronounced, without seeing
the personal specs or organisational chart, that the job was band 5!!!
BMS 2s are just about there, 3s and 4s are writting their own.
MLA & ANC and some BMS1s sorted and gone for QA.
We've decided to speed things up by identifying those jobs which will need
to go for evaluation rather than wait for them to come back from matching
panels.

Dave

Reply to this Message