Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 28 2012,14:01)|
|In an update to the Coppedge trial on Mar 28, 2012 at "Evolution News", David Klinghoffer writes about Coppedge's ECAP (Employee Contribution Assessment and Planning), "a yearly report card on job performance": |
Klinghoffer calls this "enviable reviews". I don't know much about the American system of such assessment, but I assume that we in Europe have modeled our way after it. And here, such a review would be faint praise, not enviable but at best satisfactory: especially the phrase "appropriate verbal and written communication skills" would indicate that he is lacking in this regard, while "effective working relationships" would imply that he is a little bit autistic. Am I missing something?
|Going back to 2003 when he first started receiving ECAP reviews, 14-year-veteran Coppedge had been "truly appreciated" for his "great job" and "special service," his "appropriate verbal and written communication skills," establishing "effective working relationships." Now another supervisor, Clark Burgess, had collected and reproduced in dense, small type a series of wounding critiques from co-workers, named and unnamed.|
Yeah, in the US, you basically have to murder your boss while on the factory floor to get a negative review.
Of course, to actually get promoted, your reviews must be better than that of Jesus.
I would agree that those are in the mid to mid-low range. "Exceeds expectations in both verbal and written communication" would be at the high end. "Meets Expectations" would be in the mid range. "Appropriate" sounds like the boss didn't really want to say "he's a dork".
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.