Home › Forum › Workplace Issues › Waldenbooks

Bookseller Performance Appraisals

Sat, 02/04/2006 - 21:02 — billyboy

Let me start out by saying that I might be missing something, or that I may have misunderstood what was said.

But I overheard our SM talking about the instructions he got from the DM about the performance appraisals for booksellers. Among the things he complained about were:

That unless the whole store statistics were stratospheric, and the booksellers numbers were likewise, that they could not be given anything better than a "meets expectations".

This is consistent with what she told him about Management team appraisals last year; that even if the store beat all goals by a huge amount, that no MT members could get a better than the DM (in this case a meets).

Now I have a graduate degree in a social science, but nothing I have ever seen suggests that writing appraisals in this fashion will motivate workers to achieve. Indeed, the experience of Soviet communisim suggests just the contrary.

Is there some theory of human motivation that supports this method? Is it being used generally or is it confined to our district (maybe to our store)?

‹ Why are they yanking our chain? CONVERSION FROM WALDENBOOKS TO EXPRESS ›
Sun, 02/05/2006 - 02:05 — worthmore

I spent 25+ years in human resources before being forced into early retirement. I've seen several different appraisal systems in my career, some good, some bad, but most were at least administered fairly. I even had a chance to be on a team consulting on revisions to an appraisal system once and I've supervised (and thus appraised) teams of from two to thirty people in my time. I think that qualifies me to at least speak to this subject.

I've taken the time to look at the appraisal system Borders uses since I work at Borders. Although you didn't give any details of how a person is appraised, what questions are considered, etc., it sounds like the Waldens system is identical or at the least similar to the Borders system. I have to say, it is the most complicated, time consuming, numbers-centered system I have ever seen. You are rated on a number of factors and scored from 1 to 5. The form then requires the manager to multiply the number for a particular factor by a set percentage; the result is a fraction of a number. For instance, you might be rated on your adherence to company policies. That might count for 10% of your rating; if the manager gave you a 4 on the 1 to 5 scale, which would be exceeding expectations, the manager would then multiply 4 times 10% and come up with a "score" of .4 for that factor. The manager would continue down the line, scoring and multiplying and then add numbers at the end of the sections. In the end, your score might be, for instance, a 3.2 on the 1 to 5 scale when all the individual fractional scores are added up. The form then gives ranges for the final ratings. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I do remember that anything less than 1.75 means the person is not meeting expectations. I think you had to get a 3.5 to exceed expectations, but I might be wrong there.

Although complicated, arcane, and inane, the system at least appears to be fair. Many companies have given up the old 1 to 10 scales in favor of 1 - 5, so Borders using that scale is not unreasonable. The unreasonableness of the system, if it exists, is in the way it is administered.

I haven't been around long enough to see anyone rated yet, but if what you are hearing is right, the administration of the system in your district is dead wrong. An organization can't say that subordinates can not get a higher rating than superiors, nor can an organization say that only a certain number of people will get a 5 or a 4. I've seen that used too many times and it always results in the failure of the appraisal system, although it usually takes a while and some people get forced out for artificially applied low scores before the system fails. If your district is applying such rules, the system, your district, and your store are doomed to failure. I can be better than my boss, just as my boss can be better than his/her boss. People at upper levels do fail, but the sort of system you are describing doesn't allow for acknowledgement of failure at the upper level. ANd, it doesn't allow for recognition of superior performance at lower levels.

I've seen too many good people forced out or driven out by frustration with appraisal systems administered in the way you are describing. Add stupidly administered appraisal systems to unreasonably low salaries and it is no wonder Borders (and probably Waldens, too) have turnover rates exceeding 100% per year at most locations.

I wish you luck. It sounds like you will need it.

Sun, 02/05/2006 - 07:32 — redandblack

i remember a manager talking some years back and, if my memory doesn't deceive me, i believe he had said that the total for the store should tend to veer towards a three and that if it's otherwise they might see it as being a bit odd.

check e-info under People. see if there's anything in the BEST! manuals about them. iww.org

Sun, 02/05/2006 - 13:36 — billyboy

Thanks. Another thing that is irksome about these notions is that it does not allow either the bookseller or others reading it later, to have a clear view of the sellers (or MT members) true strengths and weaknesses by understating their strengths. And of course, for someone reviewing them later, it undervalues them in comparison with people from other stores or districts. Not to mention what it does to their merit pay increases.

What I'm most curious about now though, is whether this sort of criterion is being applied everywhere, or if it is something 'special' to my store or district. Has anyone else encountered this?

Sun, 02/05/2006 - 20:35 — worthmore

The comment about total scores for the store veering toward the middle of the range sounds about right for Borders and may not be totally off base. However, organizationally-imposed scoring goals do exactly what "billyboy" is concerned about. They tend to eliminate the very good people by not allowing them to shine. The system doesn't allow for a lot of comments, either, that might allow a person's qualities to come through even though they had to get a 3 to make the store scores come out right.

I've administered appraisal systems where we were told by higher ups that we could only have a certain percentage of 5s and a certain percentage of 4s. We were generally allowed as many 1s and 2s as we wanted. One division of an organization had been purposely staffed with the brightest, most talented people they could find because this division was responsible for long and medium range planning. People have to bright and visionary to be able to determine where an organization is going to be five to fifteen years down the road. The system of certain percentages of 4s and 5s broke down here, though. Some very bright people had to be scored as 3s and a few as 2s even though all were equally talented and all truly deserved at least a 4 and probably a 5. The division fell apart after the first round of appraisals because all those who did not get a 5 left. That can happen at Borders, too, if the regions or the bean-counters in Ann Arbor impose quotas on certain scores.

Sun, 02/05/2006 - 21:05 — duckswangoose
duckswangoose's picture

At Borders there are no specific scoring goals. The "norm" is that 80% of the scores will be in the "meets" category and 10% below and 10% above.

That is listed right on the instructions but I believe that is just a guideline.