That time of year-bonus review aka treating an adult as a child

That is flat-out absurd. You're right to be angry!

George is right. Anyway, using a bell curve, there is going to be someone perfectly competent and up to standard who receives a terrible rating. If they ever start reducing the staff, that terrible rating may come back to haunt someone.

I once got marked down for not getting along well with the rest of the crew. Now, 75% of the workforce was Navajo and there was no Anglo on site that got along better with the tribe. Let it slide, or get an additional comment like "Roger is argumentative."?

I do let it slide, that is why I post it here so I can YELL some where.

I suggest you look up some of Dan Ariely's research http://www.ted.com/speakers/dan_ariely.html. He has some really fascinating insights.

One of which is this: monetary incentives are not as effective as people think. Monetary incentives will reduce the speed at which tasks are accomplished instead of speed them up.

Also, this goes back to what I was saying on your other thread about using incorrect measurements.

Un huh. Money is a reason for leaving one job and accepting another. It inspires neither loyalty nor hard, effective work.

I think that for some people money is a motivator, but only in the short term.

Kinda my point here in that in general the bonus ain't so bad even for those at the lower scale - not a 100% sure if the poor sap that ended up labeled as not doing good is getting anything though as he doesn't directly report to me so I don't know his numbers - I think it is up to the discretion of department head.

It is more the fact that these "ratings" at least in my opinion does not necessarily reflect an individual's true performance, but more if they are a bit more ahead of the pack.

It is really difficult now as well - since we haven't been able to promote anyone (even those that desire it - new policy in the past year - we used to promote when some one demonstrated that they earned it rather than an official position being opened.) - and we have quite a bit of people that are high performers as there hasn't been much movement lately and we got rid of some of the lower performers with the layoffs.

This topic caught my eye when I finished posting elsewhere.

I once wore a tunic and leggings to work in the 1990s, not knowing such a costume violated company policy. It was a cute outfit and comfortable to wear for a long day of standing on one's feet. The job was in retail and women who worked as doctors' receptionists and as tellers in banks -- jobs carrying higher status -- dressed in tunics and leggings.

The manager chewed me out. At the end of the fiscal year, when employee reviews were made, this manager -- who realized I was often the sales leader and who spoke to others about my wit, humor and my ability to adjust my manner of speaking to the customer at hand -- gave me a 21 cent raise rather than the customary 25 cent raise. Why? Because I sometimes came to work "inappropriately dressed."

The stated dress code was business casual. Duh!

While I have been at my current retail job for three years and although there are no raises, it is wonderful not be reviewed.

That sort of rampant pettiness and misdirected discipline is why I am opposed to merit raises for teachers.