Archived How to get an "O?"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
157
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #27
So, if I understand correctly PTL, you believe anyone who gives higher than an E for attendance is, in your opinion, wrong? In that specific category.
 

ptl

Red shirts in closet: 0
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
328
So, if I understand correctly PTL, you believe anyone who gives higher than an E for attendance is, in your opinion, wrong? In that specific category.

I believe that such a person (1) has lower expectations for attendance than I had; or (2) is recognizing/rewarding the sort of behaviors mentioned above (taking extra shifts, being flexible, etc.), which I think can/should be recognized in a different category; or (by FAR the most likely) (3) just hasn't actually thought about this question at all, and is just scoring based on how the TM's attendance compares to the rest of the team, rather than how it compares to the desired/expected standard.

I think a person giving the EX/O because of reason 1 would be doing the store and the team a disservice by having low expectations, so, yes, that would be wrong. The person giving the EX/O because of reason 2 would be doing it wrong, in my opinion, but I can understand why he/she would choose to do it that way. The person giving the EX/O because of reason 3 is clearly doing it wrong.

My question here, though, is why are you so upset about this? Everyone knows that individual category scores do not matter. The overall score is determined before the category scores, so it doesn't matter if someone gets an E, an EX, or an O for his/her attendance. As long as your leader gives you meaningful feedback, what difference does it make?
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
133
I was SO shocked when I saw how the review scores get decided, but this is my first leadership position with a retailer. I wonder how they do reviews for other companies? It did make me a little sick to see how things went down.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
579
How do you get an O for #3? Let's look at it.

3 Is reliable. Reports to work for all shifts. Reports to work on time. Leaves and returns to work from meals and breaks on time.
O Performance over a sustained period of time is clearly and consistently exceptional; continually exceeds all expectations of what is required or should be accomplished. Both results and how they are achieved are exceptional.

First we will go ahead and state the obvious that it would be required to work all of your shifts, show up on time, and take your breaks and meals on time. Now doing that for the year would be EFFECTIVE, which is Fully meets and sometimes exceeds position requirements. Demonstrates full understanding of all required functions.

So what would bump someone up to an excellent in that category? Clearly exceed job requirements. Makes significant contributions well beyond job demands. Provides thorough attention to the accomplishment of assigned position responsibilities with limited direction. Well we know that being flexible with scheduling is a different category so staying late to help wouldn't qualify here. To exceed the requirements of this would mean that you obviously have to not only meet your requirements but to help others meet theirs. Wait, not how you're thinking, so calm down. What I mean is helping out with breaks, lunches, and the schedule. Go in and make the break out for the team, ensuring that there is adequate coverage at all times. Be aware of events that are happening and making sure there is enough coverage for it, for instance, making sure the HLTL, ETL-HL & HR, are aware the return scan is in 2 weeks so that scheduling can be taken care of. Realizing that the new set is coming out on Sunday, making the appropriate people aware so they can adjust the schedule as needed. Make a rotating schedule for the team to ensure everyone gets a weekend day off now and then, whatever, just do things that are clearly exceeding the job requirements of showing up to work on time.

Damn, that's a lot of work just to get an EX in such a stupid category, what's it take for an O? Well we know it has to be done over a sustained period of time, so that's the whole year. How can the results be and how they were achieved be be exceptional? Well, let's say that instead of you having to hunt down the HLTL, and then the ETL-HR/HL and tell them the return scan is coming, you set up reminders in their calenders in addition to posting the return scan dates at the electronics boat. You've now made them aware of each date, gave them reminders, made the team aware, it was efficient, and best of all, it exceeded the requirements of showing up on time when you're scheduled. Is that all that's needed? No, you would have to do more, such as partnering with other work centers to make sure breaks and lunches do not clash with theirs. If electronics is going to lunch at 7:30, the operator is going to lunch at 7:30, the GSTL is going to lunch at 7:30, then who's on the floor?

I'm sure you can come up with better examples because mine are pretty basic, but what I'm trying to get across is to justify an O, you have to come in and do much, much more than your job. The minimal expectation is that you show up, on time, for every shift, and take the appropriate breaks and lunches. That's an effective.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
157
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #31
I am not upset. Wait ... paranoid ... who said I was upset? If I seem upset, it is because I expect more.

I am just questioning problematic policies and procedures. In the latest issue of Red, titled "Ready, Set, Canada!" page 3, Target celebrates the fact that has been ranked and named a such and such ethical and admired company.

Well, I expect an ethical and self-proclaimed socially responsible company to treat it's employees the same way. And that includes a fair and respectful review system.

If not, then Houston, we have a problem. I stated in my opening remarks that when I asked about this, I got no answer as to what constitutes an O in attendance. I get the uh's and um's of people who themselves don't seem know. If it's a sham, great. Be a stand up person and tell me. I'm a big boy, I can handle that. If it's unattainable, tell me.

If, as you seem to be saying, an O in attendance is not possible unless the reviewer is wrong, then why is it there? How deflating it is to know nothing I can do will ever change this score? By the way, everyone may not know what you think they don't know. How do you know that? Some doe-eyed and less jaded employees may actually think they are having an actual review based on these categories.

Let's compare this to a classroom. The teacher says ... I never give out A's. Nothing you can do would ever justify me giving out an A. You are exepcted to know how to spell. People who spell correctly are common and of average intelligence, therefore, you get a C. Oh, and other teachers who do give A's are wrong to do it. Seems silly doesn't it?

I get the reality of the situation. I understand the basic economics of the company. So, instead of providing fake reviews and unattainable scores, maybe Target should create a truly effective review system. If the local first grade teacher can do it, surely a multi-billion dollar company can. You can do it Target!
 

ptl

Red shirts in closet: 0
Joined
Mar 8, 2012
Messages
328
Yeah, no, I'm totally with you on the system being stupid. But there are also problems with your analogy--an E review is nothing like a C. You can't just look at the fact that there are five scores and do a 1:1 analogy to the ABCDF scale. If you actually read the descriptions, I'd argue that they translate more like A+, A, A-/B+, C/D, F. There is nothing wrong with an E; in fact an E sometimes exceeds expectations! Furthermore, grades in school aren't determined the way Target review scores are--they're generally much more objective, with actual rubrics and so forth, and the overall score is determined as a result of the individual scores, rather than vice versa.

As to why the O is "there" when I don't think it should be attainable based on the system: because changing the form to not allow certain scores on certain categories would require work and, come on, this is Target we're talking about; because nobody at HQ cares about the content of reviews one bit, so long as stores come in at or under budget; because nobody at HQ has actually thought about how irrational it is to allow EX/O on that category; because HQ knows reviews are written after the scores are determined and so the category scores don't matter anyway; etc. There are plenty of possible explanations, take your pick.

But, again, like I said, I think this all boils down to "Did my leader give me meaningful feedback?" And you're gonna have to just accept (unless Target changes the system dramatically) that the feedback is in the overall score, the comments, and the discussion, not just in the individual category scores. If you were my TM and asked me why you didn't get an O, I'd absolutely have told you why it was unattainable--and I'd have made damn certain that you knew your E was not in any way a negative score, and that it hadn't hurt your overall score at all.
 
Last edited:

commiecorvus

Former Signing Ninja
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
18,238
I am not upset. Wait ... paranoid ... who said I was upset? If I seem upset, it is because I expect more.

I am just questioning problematic policies and procedures. In the latest issue of Red, titled "Ready, Set, Canada!" page 3, Target celebrates the fact that has been ranked and named a such and such ethical and admired company.

Well, I expect an ethical and self-proclaimed socially responsible company to treat it's employees the same way. And that includes a fair and respectful review system.

If not, then Houston, we have a problem. I stated in my opening remarks that when I asked about this, I got no answer as to what constitutes an O in attendance. I get the uh's and um's of people who themselves don't seem know. If it's a sham, great. Be a stand up person and tell me. I'm a big boy, I can handle that. If it's unattainable, tell me.

If, as you seem to be saying, an O in attendance is not possible unless the reviewer is wrong, then why is it there? How deflating it is to know nothing I can do will ever change this score? By the way, everyone may not know what you think they don't know. How do you know that? Some doe-eyed and less jaded employees may actually think they are having an actual review based on these categories.

Let's compare this to a classroom. The teacher says ... I never give out A's. Nothing you can do would ever justify me giving out an A. You are exepcted to know how to spell. People who spell correctly are common and of average intelligence, therefore, you get a C. Oh, and other teachers who do give A's are wrong to do it. Seems silly doesn't it?

I get the reality of the situation. I understand the basic economics of the company. So, instead of providing fake reviews and unattainable scores, maybe Target should create a truly effective review system. If the local first grade teacher can do it, surely a multi-billion dollar company can. You can do it Target!

My wife is a high school math teacher in an urban school district who has received a great deal of harsh criticism because she refuses to pad her grades.
For her math is math and you get an answer right or you don't.
She also doesn't believe in giving extra credit to someone who doesn't turn in their homework on a regular basis.
So when her grades come in lower than every other teachers she gets a lot of flack but she also gets the highest state test scores.
The teachers go to school for year to learn how to grade students and there are still major differences.
The TLs and ETLs have very little training.
So much of the scoring is based on politics, markets and momentary impressions that the level of frustration on the board is not surprising at all.
If Spot wants to improve this process (which I really don't think they care much about) they would train their people in doing evaluations (and I'm not talking about the BS who's you best/worst performer that they do at the team meetings), give them more time to do them, and make a more accurate evaluation system.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2012
Messages
157
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #34
Thanks PTL. And I take none of this personally. So I apologize if it seems I do. I like a good discussion! So if I do go a little for the jugular, I apologize for that.

I knew my analogy was not spot (get it?) on. And I agree with you on most of your points. I only wish the store management would be so upfront and less evasive.

I am in no way upset with my monetary raise. I am just the type of person who would actually use the categories to try and improve. I won't dwell on it any longer though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top