Employee is hardworking. If this is the only thing a supervisor has to say about an employee's performance, it's either they don't interact much, he's not supervising the employee at all, or you to do a performance review of that supervisor because his review doesn't help at all.
Employee consistently displays above average technical skills at work. Score given is 3 out of 5. Something's fishy. If the employee "consistently displays above average skills," why was he scored only 3 out of 5? This review doesn't state the reason for the score, that is to say, the weakness of the employee. It only highlights his strengths. Either that, or the supervisor reviewing the employee is inconsistent when it comes to numerically scoring employees.
Employee has been losing concentration when not dealing with customers. Advised him to work on his focus during work hours. The good part is that a plan of action was advised (though it doesn't really amount to a plan). The bad part is that the supervisor thought that making the employee work on his focus was enough. There could be a multitude of reasons for an employee to lose focus or concentration when not forced to (like when he's concentrating on interacting with a client).
Employee is making good progress with meeting goals and deadlines. He is a quick learner and is also quick to adapt to department and company wide policy changes. He lacks initiative though and rarely steps up to volunteer. Advised employee to take initiative most of the time to develop his skills more. Showed employee his outlined performance review so he could work out a plan of action for improvement.' How does that sound? Perfect. Strengths and weaknesses were identified. Advice was given but not taken as the only plan of action, and the employee was made aware of his review and made to work out his own plan of action.
No comments:
Post a Comment