 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Certainly someone must have an idea what the company does.
>>
>> Remember that "the company" consists of less than 10 humans [decimal].
>> When a company is that tiny, they don't necessarily have a grand
>> "corporate vision" laid out in meticulous detail.
>
> Well, I'm assuming it's not a lawnmowing business, or a garden centre, or
> an aircraft manufacturer.
>
> So the product must do *something* specific.
Very loosely, computer security software.
> Don't say things like "if I didn't do it, someone
> else would" because the point of the self-assessment is that /you did
> it/. It wasn't someone else.
Sure. It's just that I don't feel like I wrote anything that nobody else
in the room could have easily written, that's all.
>> Well, this year I wrote code for about 25 different small tasks. A list
>> of 25 items seems a little excessive though...
>
> Start with the list of 25 items, then work with your manager to classify
> the items in more broad categories if necessary.
>
> I had performance reviews/self assessments/goals that included maybe 4 or
> 5 main categories, each with a half dozen items under them. That's not
> unusual.
OK...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:29:53 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> Certainly someone must have an idea what the company does.
>>>
>>> Remember that "the company" consists of less than 10 humans [decimal].
>>> When a company is that tiny, they don't necessarily have a grand
>>> "corporate vision" laid out in meticulous detail.
>>
>> Well, I'm assuming it's not a lawnmowing business, or a garden centre,
>> or an aircraft manufacturer.
>>
>> So the product must do *something* specific.
>
> Very loosely, computer security software.
OK. So that's a start. :)
>> Don't say things like "if I didn't do it, someone else would" because
>> the point of the self-assessment is that /you did it/. It wasn't
>> someone else.
>
> Sure. It's just that I don't feel like I wrote anything that nobody else
> in the room could have easily written, that's all.
That doesn't matter. What matters is that *you* wrote it. So write that
you wrote it. That's what a performance review is about - not about
whether you think someone else could've written it, but that you were the
one who was tasked with it and are the one who wrote it.
>>> Well, this year I wrote code for about 25 different small tasks. A
>>> list of 25 items seems a little excessive though...
>>
>> Start with the list of 25 items, then work with your manager to
>> classify the items in more broad categories if necessary.
>>
>> I had performance reviews/self assessments/goals that included maybe 4
>> or 5 main categories, each with a half dozen items under them. That's
>> not unusual.
>
> OK...
You're getting there. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:28:35 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> (ie, very little focus, big thinker, not too concerned about the
>> details, changes his mind daily about where he wants to go).
>
> That sounds disturbingly familiar.
>
> Ooo, a shiny thing...
Yep. I did writing for this company 2 years ago for a product that was
to be released about 3 months after I did the writing.
The product still is in a free beta - and there's a lot of new stuff that
really (IMHO) should've been targeted for a version 2 (or even a version
3).
>>>> So look at this another way - they interviewed you, hired you, and
>>>> seem to be happy with the job you're doing, right? So don't tell
>>>> them they're stupid by saying that what you do doesn't matter.
>>>
>>> Fair enough.
>>
>> So just summarise what you've done over the past year. That's a
>> starting point.
>
> OK.
Like I said in another post, you're getting there. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Ooo, a shiny thing...
>
> Yep. I did writing for this company 2 years ago for a product that was
> to be released about 3 months after I did the writing.
>
> The product still is in a free beta - and there's a lot of new stuff that
> really (IMHO) should've been targeted for a version 2 (or even a version
> 3).
"So, what do you want us to work on next?"
"OK, well A is really important. Put that as priority one. B is a
crucial capability; none of our competitors have that yet. So put that
as priority one. C is a really fantastic idea, so put that as priority
one. D, I've got a customer who's really interested in that, so that has
to be priority one. Oh, and E is going to enable us to deliver a really
compelling advantage, so that's priority one."
"So... all five items have equal priority?"
"Yes."
"So which one do you want us to do first?"
"Can't you do all of them?"
"Yes, eventually. But which one should we sort out FIRST?"
"I want them all!"
*bang* *bang* *bang*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:22:33 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Ooo, a shiny thing...
>>
>> Yep. I did writing for this company 2 years ago for a product that was
>> to be released about 3 months after I did the writing.
>>
>> The product still is in a free beta - and there's a lot of new stuff
>> that really (IMHO) should've been targeted for a version 2 (or even a
>> version 3).
>
> "So, what do you want us to work on next?"
>
> "OK, well A is really important. Put that as priority one. B is a
> crucial capability; none of our competitors have that yet. So put that
> as priority one. C is a really fantastic idea, so put that as priority
> one. D, I've got a customer who's really interested in that, so that has
> to be priority one. Oh, and E is going to enable us to deliver a really
> compelling advantage, so that's priority one."
>
> "So... all five items have equal priority?"
>
> "Yes."
>
> "So which one do you want us to do first?"
>
> "Can't you do all of them?"
>
> "Yes, eventually. But which one should we sort out FIRST?"
>
> "I want them all!"
>
> *bang* *bang* *bang*
Yep, that sums that client up pretty much. Well, except that every day
there's a change in direction - at least there was when I was doing work
for them.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> If it were noticed that I was only pretending to work, I'd probably be
> fired on the spot. That doesn't mean that my work is critical to meeting
> deadlines - it's just that, why would you pay somebody to do nothing?
Why would you pay someone if the work they are doing doesn't contribute
to meeting deadlines?
The only answer is if they are hoping that in the future you *will* be
able to do work that is critical to meeting deadlines. And given two
people, one who says "i wrote code last year" and another who lists out
his own personal deadlines and how he met them, guess which one is more
likely to get promoted (or be successful in applying for another job)?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/11/2013 1:47 AM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2013-11-13 19:57, Stephen a écrit :
>>
>> So! I have that. (When you work in the nuclear industry it is
>> mandatory.) So has doctor, you know who.
>>
>
> So do I, but I work in one of the colonies. It may not be recognized.
>
Not "may not" as each organisation has to do its own vetting. But if you
can supply the name of the organisation that cleared you. It
significantly shortens the process.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/11/2013 12:22 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 14/11/13 00:38, Stephen wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
>> For my last assessment I
>> went into the maintenance supervisor’s office with my trousers over my
>> arm
>
> Now I've lost my appetite :-)
>
Lost your appetite for what? ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/11/2013 12:16 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> On 14/11/13 00:57, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> So! I have that. (When you work in the nuclear industry it is
>> mandatory.) So has doctor, you know who.
>>
> So now I'm going to have to kill you; but not before you've bought me a
> beer (and possibly some uisge beatha)
>
That is so annoying. I hate being deaded.
>>> Not joking.
>>
>> Not joking.
>>
> What do you think ;-)
>
A better question than "Can you think?" ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/11/13 11:16, Stephen wrote:
>
> That is so annoying. I hate being deaded.
>
Enter Bluebottle, waits for audience applause, not a sausage
>>>> Not joking.
>>>
>>> Not joking.
>>>
>> What do you think ;-)
>>
>
> A better question than "Can you think?" ;-)
>
Cogito, ergo cogito
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
