Anonymous wrote:Unpopular opinion from a long time manager. If you are doing your job, exactly as written, exactly 40 hours a week, you are meeting expectations.

This is not school where “getting all the answers right” = 100%. I am assuming you are equating A+ with a 100%.

In my organization 70% of people get a Meets. It’s like being graded in a curve. meets is a C but it’s also a modest raise and a small bonus.

Exceeds is Exceptional. Above and Beyond. It’s contributing new ideas, working independently, doing things without being asked, providing updates without being reminded, and generally EXCEEDING your scope, exceeding expectations, exceeding the output and quality of your peers. Exceeding is extra credit and that is why it earns extra bonus.

I don't disagree but the problem with that is that everyone has to be onboard or else the only thing that's really happening is that you're penalizing your own employees.

We have this issue at my government agency. In our agency "satisfactory" means "doing your job, exactly as written, 40 hours a week" whereas in most agencies "satisfactory" means "one bad day away from a PIP" and it really hurts people trying to transfer because they see someone with a "satisfactory" and assume they're not doing well.

How old are you, OP?

And a teacher exceeding expectations and no pay increase means nothing off their back. If exceeding expectations meant more pay it would be given out more freely.

A lot of times people dont want to promote so you get a mediocre rating. Or you get exceeds expectations when they are desperate to keep employees or they need to replace someone. Its not always really related to performance but more what the company wishes to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every place limits the %. Whether they formally do or don’t varies, but they do. And they should. If everyone is exceeding expectations then your expectations are too low.

The key thing to ask is what the differentiating factors are. It shouldn’t be a secret what expectations are.

I totally side this. Whats the point of performance review if everyone exceeds expectations ?

But what if a lot of people do exceed expectations?

Exceeds expectations is so asinine of a measurement anyway. What does that even mean? Everyone should be meeting expectations and that should be enough. FFS.

Anonymous wrote:Working hard does not equal exceeding expectations. There is an employee who reports to me who works hard and I appreciate her efforts. However, she makes lots of mistakes, inane thorough, and needs a lot of hand-holding. Is her performance and enough for me to let her go? No. But I’ve definitely considered it and in no way does she exceed my expectations.

This.

Anonymous wrote:Every place limits the %. Whether they formally do or don’t varies, but they do. And they should. If everyone is exceeding expectations then your expectations are too low.

The key thing to ask is what the differentiating factors are. It shouldn’t be a secret what expectations are.

I totally side this. Whats the point of performance review if everyone exceeds expectations ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My company only provides three choices: exceeds expectations, meets expectations, and does not meet expectations. For a supervisor to assign an Exceeds Expectations to a direct report requires significant higher level management authorizations, many reports, and a lot of conversations.
That keeps the "expectation inflation" in check.

This is our company too. We reserve "exceeds expectations" for someone on the team that we're trying to promote. People who "meet expectations" still get their raise and full bonus, so "exceeds" is mainly for a big step up in title/pay and we use it judiciously. Both because we have to (needs a ton of meetings/approvals) and to save our team capital for when we need it.

Same here. The “good” ratings are actually phrased as “meets and sometimes exceeds” and “consistently exceeds”. The latter is basically “must promote”

As a manager of a big team at a company that caps the number of “exceeds/excelling,” I can report that everyone thinks they deserve the highest rating but the reality is very few actually do.

Very few employees have sufficient information to compare staff…but certain managers do.

Everywhere I’ve worked has used five levels, with some variation of (1) something bad, (2) needs improvement, (3) meets expectations, (4) exceeds, and (5) significantly exceeds.

In my experience, 4 is the norm for average-to-good employees. 5 is for a few rockstars. 3 suggests you’re kind of mediocre but not terrible. 2 means you better show improvement, and 1 means you’re about to be fired.

If I got all 3s I would assume I would never advance or be given favorable assignments, and would probably look elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many people on my team are upset about their subpar ratings. We feel we worked really hard and only received meets expectations. What is this process like behind the scenes?

"Meets expectations" is not "subpar."

You are working hard, doing a good job, and being recognized for it.

This exactly. At my company, we have a 1-5 rating, with 3 being “meets”, and it really is meant to convey a good job. A subpar performance would be either a 1 (poor/about to be fired) and 2 (below expectations/on a PIP or to be imminently placed on a PIP).

Anonymous wrote:I get exceeds expectations. I think I deserve it but I also am afforded opportunities to shine because management just likes me. So it’s part talent and part right place right time right circumstance. For me at least.

This is an important point. In a lot of positions you can't "exceed expectations" if all of the work you are given is low level. When I started at DOJ I wasn't really given any opportunities to shine until I got assertive about asking for them. Once I did so, I got "exceeds expectations" every year and started being given rare opportunities. I think they were so impressed by my desire to take on the more complex work that I would have been given "exceeds expectations" even if I had messed it all up, lol (but I didn't -- I loved my work and did well).

This is all going to vary greatly depending upon who is doing the reviewing. Look up the hawk and dove phenomena. Doves will basically put "exceeds expectations" for anyone who is halfway decent at their job, and hawks don't tend to give out "exceeds expectations" unless someone is a true superstar, like top 10% of employees they have ever seen. Most reviewers are somewhere in between. Sounds like perhaps the folks in your department are evaluated by a hawk.

At any rate, I would set up a meeting to talk to my supervisor about the general expectations for my position and what I could do to exceed them. If you don't come across as complaining about the review you got, and come across as enthusiastic about improving instead, it can only help you.

You said everyone worked really hard, but working really hard doesn't necessarily get you there if you don't have the insight to work on the right things. That is where the discussion with your supervisor could help. Good luck. All of us who work really hard want to receive an "exceeds expectations" in our review.

Anonymous wrote:So, I'm a teacher and have typically gotten exceeds expectations on my ratings. With one principal, she gave me a "meets". She was aware that I might be disappointed. I very kindly responded that I was not and she was surprised. My response was something along the lines of "I will always be striving to exceed, whether that is recognized or not. Your evaluation of me is fine and as my boss you have the right to assign whatever rating you want. My hard work isn't dependent on your opinion.
And, since there is no financial reward for exceeding, this is no loss to me."

I’m a fed and feel the same way. Very little bonuses. I know I’m a top employee and if my boss doesn’t see it, it’s fine. My colleagues and my own employees see it. I don’t even read what my boss writes for my performance. I absolutely love my job and I basically am the golden goose.