do they do this where you work?

[goodo123]

Got pointed in the direction of a spreadsheet on the computer at work titled skills matrix, without going in to too much detail they have rated all engineering staff on their skills from 1 to 5, 5 being highly skilled and 1 being poo, few blokes at work peeved off about it because of the "scores" they got and I can see why.... Some semi skilled blokes scoring higher than techs and some mechs scoring higher for lecccs than leccs themselves and similar the other way round. Their has been no formal testing and nobody was told about this. I understand their needs to be reviews and management need to see who can do what but these are simply ridiculous. Also bare in mind that each shift (4 total) has its own manager so how can the scores be consistent? To be honest the more I think about it the more it annoys me.... So does this happen where you work? How do they do personal development reviews? Or do they just make it up as they go along? Seems to me the more the management like you the higher points u get even if you are carp

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Whilst not wanting to brown you off any more, there needs to be some way of "ranking" the workforce.

 

Are you in a union and if so are they aware of this new development?

[goodo123]

I understand their needs to be some form of ranking but the points some people are given are ridiculous, another example is a apprentice a year out of his time scored higher than 30 40 years plus experience engineering tech. As for the union nobody knows what this spreadsheet got created for, my thoughts are that management have put it into the wrong folder at work and it should be in a password protected one..... -1 point for IT skills lol.

[delburt0]

They used to do this at my place aka "appraisels" was done to go on your record to see if you were worth your money , they also got used in redundancy exercises,,, stupid idea they don't do it anymore , they finally realized it was tosh..

[Vince Green]

The matrix is a generally discredited form of employee assessment. It was used to decide on redundancies at the place where I worked and the union fought long and hard against its obvious injustices.

It reflects the opinion of the person filling it out. Apart from the obvious abuse of using it to settle old scores or protect favourites, the person filling it out has other issues. Where I worked at the time was a very large company in a rural town. Our manager went to school with some of the blokes he was rating. They had been in the scouts togeather and played for the same football teams. Their dads had worked togeather.

 

As the redundancies went through in waves it was obvious that some people were being shielded.The manager who did the rating still works there fifteen years later. He should have been the very first to go. I know everybody thinks their manager is a plonker but this man really was. He was moved sideways several times because of problems and was put in charge of our group when there wasn't a need for anybody. He meddled and made things worse.

 

It even depended on which football team you supported, I am not exagerating. The manager and all his family were mad supporters of the local football club. His 'football mate' that he always discussed the match with on a Monday morning ( a right crawler) was made redundant and got a good payoff but was re-employed back in his old job as a temp a fortnight later and remained there for another ten years.

Edited February 25, 2013 by Vince Green

[aris]

Seen this - before a round of redundancies. They have to be seen to make the redundancies based on a "fair" basis across the whole employee population.

[Sha Bu Le]

I'm out of the rat race now (retired) but we only ever had one 'appraisal' it was supposed to be a review of the previous years achievements/conduct etc. However when something was raised that had happened 3 years previous I objected and got a demerit for questioning senior managements judgement.

 

Overlapping grades were introduced resulting in junior staff getting greater rewards than senior people, they were also paid overtime whilst managers were not, you can imagine how the 3 managers myself included felt.

 

Anyhoos did not last long, following year the company went into receivership and was bought out by the 2 directors. We then had some sensible grades introduced. But still down to the MDs personal views absolute poo.

 

As for using a spread sheet the MD was far from computer literate (and still is), no appraisals have been done in the last 14 years, no job descriptions either which is a bit of a no no. Retired for 3 months now and apart from getting a tad bored now and then I'm well out of it.

 

Edit = typo

Edited February 25, 2013 by Sha Bu Le

[HDAV]

We have a matrix it's designed per job role and to identify training needs, unfortunately it is opinion based and generally by someone who doesn't do the job. Ours has mostly qualification based and none of mine appear as it was based on another member of staff and we have totally different backgrounds.... All it means is they need to invest lots of training in my to get me to the same benchmark level as the other guy....

[Amazed]

Seen this - before a round of redundancies. They have to be seen to make the redundancies based on a "fair" basis across the whole employee population.

 

I recall it being called the Bradford factor.

[clakk]

we have annual reviews done by your supervisor.load of tripe in 17 years ive had 3 ,one of which was done by a mutally hated p.... and i refused to sign .he had to make a public apology to me as personal venom is not an appriasal.u never get unbiased views in a factory ours is more clicky=clicky than a box of lego.we all got stiched by an evil bit.. in h,r 2 years ago instead of 5 pay grades.based on experience and qualifications we now have 2 .so we are all the same NOT.2 year tool swinger rates the same as a 17 year process trained person how the hell did they get to that???? :no:

[kiffy]

we have had to impliment this in our workplace as part of being ISO9001 registered so if your company is ISO registered then they have to do it

[aris]

we have had to impliment this in our workplace as part of being ISO9001 registered so if your company is ISO registered then they have to do it

 

Yes we have ISO in my current company - but the fact that it's ISO is clearly stated - and there is a whole ISO programme around it. Also, it tracks training - not necessarily 'skills'. The 'skills' matrix mentioned in the OP sounds like there are redundancies on the way. I would certainly question the score you got if you feel it is wrong and why. If they try to underplay it - make your objections known in writing (or e-mail), so you have a record of it in case you need it later.

[Gunnerbob]

The only time I came across this was prior to redundancies, the criteria was adjusted to give the required result...or am I being cynical?

[clakk]

we had iso for years but theyve included that bradford scale as well as the reviews which dont happen every year as they should .they only happen when head office send the auditors in hence only 3 in 17 years .so possible someone in h.r is cooking books :hmm:

[Canis]

we have had to impliment this in our workplace as part of being ISO9001 registered so if your company is ISO registered then they have to do it

 

Untrue -

 

being ISO9001 simply means that a company needs to audit itself against a set of written procedures for carrying out all work functiuons. Each company gets to write the procedures themselves and yours obviously decided to add that policy to the hr procedures !

[aris]

We're ISO audited twice a year - one internal one external. I would have though that if your matrix was related to ISO conformance, you would have been told about it.

 

Google 'redundancy matrix'.

[figgy]

The Matrix system has always been open for abuse,and abused it is,more and more its used for personnel score settling.

 

If used in the proper manner it is a good way of assessing the workforce.

 

People with the same skills scoring the same score should be equal,just some are more equal than others.

 

Figgy

[Scully]

Staff were 'rated' prior to major redundancies at a local plant a couple of years ago.Taken into account were things such as skills,length of service,attendance/absent records,age,attitude,and health.

Then voluntary redundancies were called for,with those who were desirable/financially viable urged to stay on,and others given incentives to leave.A few took early retirement with pensions and lump sums,others lump sums and started their own businesses.Some quite wealthy lads around here at the moment.

[Thunderbird]

There is nothing wrong with using tools to assess the workforce. What's wrong is the wrong tool being used, not used properly, or as people have said, as a stick to beat people with or a way for managers to look after mates. But that's a wider issue.

[DNS]

Goodo123:

 

Yes, 'they ' do this where I work. It has several purposes - primarily it's to identify training opportunities and to balance skills actoss work teams.

 

It would also be a consideration in promotion or redundancy. It's very open in my case - it's on the works noticeboard for everyone to see. When we started there were some questions and queries, but it's been in use for several years now.

 

In the case of redundancies it is certainly not the only factor taken into consideration and it's much more fair than the old 'last in, first out'.

 

(To the other poster re: Bradford factor. That's a different thing. It's a means of assessing absence records and highlights frequent short absences much more clearly than just 'total number of days off'.)

Edited February 25, 2013 by DNS

[keg]

Everwhere i have worked has used assesment centres and these are generally run by external companies so personal views and prejudices etc do not come into it.

[goodo123]

So to confront management or not?

[HDAV]

So to confront management or not?

Certainly worth asking what the assement criteria was if it is as bad as you say they have no idea of who does/can do what......

[ST3V3]

my boss gave me the task of doing askills matrix late last year I gave all the employees a list of tasks there job envolved and ask them to mark themselves the guys who are good at there job undercut themselves the useless ones know it all.

I then proceed to get them to show me which the useless ones failed but bitched that they still can do everything just having a bad day

[Jega]

We have a similar appraisal every year ,to be honest i just tell my supervisor to give me a "B" for everything and bring it to me to sign at the end of the day.My thinking is that if i get an "A" for anything then the only way is down ,if i get a "C" then i'll look thick,and in the end if they want rid of me then they'll come up with something which will only lead me to handing it over to my union lawyers anyway.

So all in all i dont get too involved with their silly bloody games and i definitley dont let it get to me.