Original Post
Staff Peer Evaluations
Very often, if a staff member is underperforming (or not even performing at all), it takes a very long time before anything is done about it. Sometimes, this can have a very bad effect on entire staff usergroups. I've talked with a few people and I know I'm not the only staff member concerned about this sort of thing.
There's no-one holding these inactive/shit staff members to account. The broader community can't, since often they're unaware/don't have access to the necessary information. The staff has this information.
I propose that every so often, perhaps every two months, each staff member briefly rates their team-members and supervisor/s and identifies the inactive/shit staffers. This is called peer evaluation. It's done in many businesses, government departments and militaries to identify the strong and weak links in teams.
An example peer evaluation format (I'm not tied to it, if someone comes up with something better, use it):
Staffer A - Activity 5/5 - Competency 4/5
Staffer B - Activity 3/5 - Competency 5/5
Staffer C - Activity 1/5 - Competency 2/5
Staffer D - Activity 3/5 - Competency 3/5
Staffer E - Activity 4/5 - Competency 4/5
Supervisor A - Activity 5/5 - Competency 5/5
Additional notes - Staffer C has done literally nothing the past 2 months, he needs to be fired/replaced. Supervisor A is absolutely fantastic, he should be showered with accolades.
---
This doesn't need to be an extensive survey. I appreciate that staff members would not be keen on, every two months, filling in some crazy detailed report - Something that takes only a few minutes would be appropriate. The only thing that needs to happen with this is that the inactive/shit staffers get identified and removed from staff. The other benefit of running the peer evaluations is star staff members also get identified.
I've included a poll in this suggestion to gauge community support. The will of the community is important, so if the community support this issue, it'll have a higher chance of being implemented.
---
To make clear, staff would only be rating other staff in their usergroup and their supervisors. They would not be asked to rate every staff member.
There's no-one holding these inactive/shit staff members to account. The broader community can't, since often they're unaware/don't have access to the necessary information. The staff has this information.
I propose that every so often, perhaps every two months, each staff member briefly rates their team-members and supervisor/s and identifies the inactive/shit staffers. This is called peer evaluation. It's done in many businesses, government departments and militaries to identify the strong and weak links in teams.
An example peer evaluation format (I'm not tied to it, if someone comes up with something better, use it):
Staffer A - Activity 5/5 - Competency 4/5
Staffer B - Activity 3/5 - Competency 5/5
Staffer C - Activity 1/5 - Competency 2/5
Staffer D - Activity 3/5 - Competency 3/5
Staffer E - Activity 4/5 - Competency 4/5
Supervisor A - Activity 5/5 - Competency 5/5
Additional notes - Staffer C has done literally nothing the past 2 months, he needs to be fired/replaced. Supervisor A is absolutely fantastic, he should be showered with accolades.
---
This doesn't need to be an extensive survey. I appreciate that staff members would not be keen on, every two months, filling in some crazy detailed report - Something that takes only a few minutes would be appropriate. The only thing that needs to happen with this is that the inactive/shit staffers get identified and removed from staff. The other benefit of running the peer evaluations is star staff members also get identified.
I've included a poll in this suggestion to gauge community support. The will of the community is important, so if the community support this issue, it'll have a higher chance of being implemented.
---
To make clear, staff would only be rating other staff in their usergroup and their supervisors. They would not be asked to rate every staff member.
Last edited by Ele; Oct 19, 2016 at 02:02 PM.
In all staff circles I've been in I've felt comfortable talking to my superiors and the groups as a whole if I thought there were competency, activity, or other issues. And in my time as msquad lead I think I did a pretty good job of addressing the concerns of my group.
I don't think mandated peer reviews are really necessary because it's a process that goes on all the time - the information is already there and there's no need for a formal mechanism to capture it. I think the issue is with there just needing to be more action taken in some cases.
It's useful here to look into why sometimes there seems to be little done even when there could or should be.
This is what I think largely contributes to it (in no particular order):
1. Some staff positions are hard to fill. Whether that's because they require special skills (item forgers for example) or because the work is tedious and a lot of the time downright depressing (msquad) or simply because there aren't many other users in the community that could be trusted in the role or have the skills and attitude appropriate for the spot.
This can lead into staffers who are doing a sub par job being kept on because 40% work/effort from that staff member is better than the 0% you'd get if you booted them out.
2. No one wants to seem overbearing and have to have the slightly awkward talk with someone telling them that they're not doing a good enough job. It's weird because it's a volunteer position on a little forum for a tiny indie game but the staff positions are run like project groups in an office with a manager and workers. Add to that that work is all done through a screen on the internet and you get this kind of weird disconnect. Hard to explain - but that's a feeling I got.
3. Cliques. I don't think this happens much (at least I hope it doesn't) but I can recall cases where people's personal friendships and connections have come in the way of what's best and fairest for the group and community by extension. Most people are pretty good at marking that division though and not letting personal relationships get in the way of stuff. On the flip side most people are also emotionally intelligent enough to not let discussions about their work cross into and affect their emotions and relationships.
I don't really know what the best way to get more action happening would be but hopefully that's shed some light on the reasons why it can happen that way. So yea I'm opposed to this idea as an information gathering system because it's unnecessary but it might not be a bad idea to rig it into some sort of system that forces staff leads to do a small monthly report for the other staff/leads/sAdmins and hold themselves accountable for and explain their group's performance. Not sure what side of the fence I'm on as to if it's even necessary but those are my thoughts on it.
I don't think mandated peer reviews are really necessary because it's a process that goes on all the time - the information is already there and there's no need for a formal mechanism to capture it. I think the issue is with there just needing to be more action taken in some cases.
It's useful here to look into why sometimes there seems to be little done even when there could or should be.
This is what I think largely contributes to it (in no particular order):
1. Some staff positions are hard to fill. Whether that's because they require special skills (item forgers for example) or because the work is tedious and a lot of the time downright depressing (msquad) or simply because there aren't many other users in the community that could be trusted in the role or have the skills and attitude appropriate for the spot.
This can lead into staffers who are doing a sub par job being kept on because 40% work/effort from that staff member is better than the 0% you'd get if you booted them out.
2. No one wants to seem overbearing and have to have the slightly awkward talk with someone telling them that they're not doing a good enough job. It's weird because it's a volunteer position on a little forum for a tiny indie game but the staff positions are run like project groups in an office with a manager and workers. Add to that that work is all done through a screen on the internet and you get this kind of weird disconnect. Hard to explain - but that's a feeling I got.
3. Cliques. I don't think this happens much (at least I hope it doesn't) but I can recall cases where people's personal friendships and connections have come in the way of what's best and fairest for the group and community by extension. Most people are pretty good at marking that division though and not letting personal relationships get in the way of stuff. On the flip side most people are also emotionally intelligent enough to not let discussions about their work cross into and affect their emotions and relationships.
I don't really know what the best way to get more action happening would be but hopefully that's shed some light on the reasons why it can happen that way. So yea I'm opposed to this idea as an information gathering system because it's unnecessary but it might not be a bad idea to rig it into some sort of system that forces staff leads to do a small monthly report for the other staff/leads/sAdmins and hold themselves accountable for and explain their group's performance. Not sure what side of the fence I'm on as to if it's even necessary but those are my thoughts on it.
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»