Evaluations Becoming Devaluations at The Post

Sept. 22, 2006 – The business of job evaluations at The Post is changing. And while change is what many employees wanted – especially those who had gone for years without a formal clue to what their supervisors thought of their work – a growing number of employees are beginning to wonder if they will regret getting what they wished for.

Last month, in a memo from Len Downie, Phil Bennett and Milton Coleman, newsroom employees were notified that, as of this fall, evaluations will be done more regularly and will include more specifics in terms of the employee’s level of performance. These changes are in addition to changes already being implemented, which require employees to “rate themselves.”

The Guild sees at least two problems arising. One is that some employees are suddenly getting news that, despite years of complete silence from supervisors or even years of glowing verbal reviews, their first written evaluations are extremely negative and appear to be a setup for future disciplinary action or even dismissal. It seems odd to these employees — and to the Guild – that these workers, continued on page 2 who by all accounts have performed more than satisfactorily for years, have suddenly been deemed unworthy of their positions at The Post. Indeed, it looks to us like The Post, having completed its Voluntary Retirement Incentive Plan, is now ramping up an Involuntary Early Retirement Plan, and is using the newly upgraded evaluation program to push some employees out the door.

Guild-covered employees should take this process seriously and push back when it seems that evaluations are unfair or motivated by something other than the improved communication or career advancement that the process is said to be all about.

This brings us to the second area of concern: self-evaluations. Many employees have been asking, “How open should I be about my shortcomings? Will this information be used against me?” Given what the Guild has seen to date, the answer to the second question is certainly “Yes,” and the answer to the first is, “Perhaps not very.”

All of us are aware of ways we can be better. Most of us are striving all the time to improve. The Guild favors evolution toward a just evaluation process that truly is designed to help employees grow and improve at The Post. But until we see more evidence that this is how evaluations will be used, we suggest you take the opportunity to sing your praises, and let your supervisor do the work of spelling out the areas where you might do better. And if any of those words from your supervisor strike you as false, misleading or unfair, contact the Guild immediately.