I work for a company that believes in reverse evaluations.
I don’t think it is right to allow employees to evaluate their
superior. I feel it gives the employees a sense of power and
puts the employee and manager on the same level. This could
make the manager feel reluctant to make important staff
corrections as they might get rated poorly on their reverse
review. Please advise as I’m struggling with my management
techniques trying to comply with my company’s wishes without
losing my confidence as a manager. I’ve managed people for over
10 years and have never had as much difficulties with my staff
as I have had since I started in this position. Help! What am I
- Carrie in Emporia, KS
I’m with you 100%. Reverse
evals are dangerous for the exact reason you described. Having
customers evaluate employees is even more dangerous, because it
creates a conflict of interest. I know of one restaurant chain
that discontinued having employees evaluate bartenders because
several bartenders who got high scores were bribing their
customers by over pouring and undercharging.
your company insists on reverse evals, make sure they’re
weighted properly and that whoever oversees them understands
that the conflict of interest they can create can completely
defeat the purpose of doing them.
Thanks for your question.
- Glenn in Nashville, TN
= = = = = = = = = = = =
the red Ask Glenn button to submit a question. You may
remain anonymous if your prefer.
I missed the obituary, but modesty
apparently died in our lifetime.
The irony is that so
many young women who are culprits don’t have a clue as to what
women endured just a generation ago.
In a 1974 case
(Barnes v. Train), a female employee rejected her boss’s se*ual
advances and alleged she was retaliated against because of it.
But the trial court ruled that there was no se* discrimination
and that the male supervisor “Merely solicited his subordinate
because he found her attractive and then retaliated because he
Though an appellate court reversed
that decision in 1977, it wasn’t until 1980 that the EEOC issued
guidelines that forbid se*ual harassment as a form of se*
In 1981, a U.S. court ruled for the first
time that liability could exist for a “Se*ually Hostile
Environment,” even if the employee lost no tangible job benefits
as a result (Bundy v. Jackson).
HR professionals had
to start warning men not to stare at female coworkers. But at
about the same time, young women started coming to work dressed
more like they were going to a nightclub than to their jobs.
First, “Mom Jeans” were replaced by low rise jeans that
draw attention to the exact part of the female anatomy men were
being told not to look at.
Then came “Tramp Stamps”
(tattoos on the lower back) to draw even more attention.
Then there was pulling the thong underwear out to draw even
more attention. And as if that’s not enough, the latest trend
is going commando (no underwear).
The manager of a
medical practice in Augusta, GA told me one of her employees
came to work wearing no underwear and with such a low waistline
that “There was NOTHING left to the imagination”. They made her
wear a jacket to cover herself.
The manager asked
“Have we come to a point where we actually have to tell
employees to wear underwear?”
Sadly, the answer is
YES. There was a time when modesty and common sense dictated
what "reasonable” workplace attire was, but that time has gone
the way of VCRs and 8-track tapes.
As one female
manager put it, she tells her female employees to “Cover the
No matter how obvious they seem to you,
you have to communicate what your standards are. Common sense is
not so common any more.
To Your Success,
* = X
Click here to
comment on this issue >>