Modeling performance after evaluation criteria

It's one of those things that would appear so very logical that we rarely, if ever, do it. Think back to the first few days of work at your most recent place of employment. Did you even think of asking your boss to share with you the criteria with which you will be evaluated one year hence?

It's my contention that when it comes to career advancement there may be nothing more important. As a matter of fact, if coached properly it would behoove one to broach the subject during the latter stages of the interview process. I would certainly recommend that this piece of business be high on the priority list -- if not first -- when accepting a new position.

The reality is that usually a year out you will be sitting down with your boss, and he or she will present you with a document entitled "Performance Evaluation." For most, it will be the first time any such formal assessment of your skills by the company will be unveiled. You really can't afford to be caught by surprise.

If you wish to secure the actual forms, you should ask the person to whom you report. However, it shouldn't surprise you to find out they may not be able to accommodate you. Such details are often left to the human-resources professional responsible for the business unit.

The fact is that until that time of year rolls around, it's the last thing on a manager's mind. Usually, the HR professional ends up chasing the evaluator to submit their report on time. Therefore, it would be in your best interest to be proactive and request this information. It's your prerogative to view this material.

It becomes of paramount importance to have knowledge of this criterion if you've negotiated a six-month salary review in lieu of a higher rate of compensation. Due to challenging economic times, this phenomenon happens to be more commonplace. Simply stated, if it affects your bottom line, you need to keep both eyes on the prize.

There is a movement afoot to increase the number of evaluations to two per year or one every six months. It has to do with the motivation and satisfaction of the employee as it pertains to retention. Companies in today's market, more than ever before, covet high-achieving employees. So be sure to question how often these ratings will be doled out.

Oh yeah, and ask also if a self-evaluation is encouraged. This is certainly worthwhile and can go a long way to foster a strong relationship with your boss. Being on the same page at the start is a good thing. And occasionally, a well thought-out personal evaluation may influence the hiring manager in a positive way.

The actual evaluation form will likely consist of a definition of the ratings. Sometimes a number system, say categories 1-5, may be employed. But most often a word-based scenario is the choice.

For example, something like "FE" pertaining to "far exceeds" goals in all areas would indicate exceptional performance while "CE," or "consistently exceeds" goals, is considered superior. These might be followed by "SM," or "sometimes meets" goals, equals expected/successful performance and "PM," meaning "partially meets" goals, shows fair performance. "DNM," or "does not meet" agreed-upon goals, would be considered poor performance and rounds out the ratings scale.

Key areas of responsibilities for the job vary by discipline but usually consist of somewhere between three and five specific standards. They're graded per the above scale.

If your company is on top of its game, it will measure your performance against a well-defined success profile based on information derived by the various assessment tools at its disposal. The more detailed the explanation of these competencies, the better your capability to perform to the specific model.

Normally, there are anywhere from five to 10 areas to be rated. One of the usual suspects is technical competence, measuring your technical knowledge in several functional areas and your ability to translate such information.

Similarly, some combination of initiative/drive rating helps the employer determine managerial maintenance levels along with ones so called "think-out-of-the-box" potential.