Meets Expectations

Perhaps the most widely used rating in performance management systems is the dreaded meets expectations. People who contribute in ways and at levels that are certainly beyond anyone's expectations find "meets expectations" demoralizing. Why? After all, they did meet expectations. Here are some possible explanations for strong feelings about the "meets" rating, for people whose jobs fall in the category called knowledge work.

Check your own expectations

You risk disappointment unless you have concrete indications that your supervisor's expectations are in alignment with your own expectations vis-à-vis your performance. Rare are the supervisors who specify precisely their expectations for their subordinates' performance.

For many, it's realistic to assume ambiguity about the distinction between "meets" and "exceeds" performance levels. Most supervisors are free to assess anyone's performance as either "meets" or "exceeds" without risk of contradicting any standard, stated or not. To the extent that supervisors are free in this way, the distinction between "meets" and "exceeds" is meaningless, and expectations that you will receive any particular rating are unjustified.

Accept the complexity of performance

Performance is such a complex entity that precisely defining objective specifications distinguishing "meets" from "exceeds" is probably impossible. For some jobs, even writing a complete job description is difficult.

Even though Performance is such a complex entity
that precisely defining objective
specifications distinguishing
"meets" from "exceeds" is
probably impossibleyou might feel that your performance exceeds anyone's reasonable expectations, recognize that you probably know more about your performance than your supervisor does. This isn't a justification for anyone undervaluing your performance. Rather, it's a criticism of the simple-mindedness of most performance management systems. To believe that one can justify any rating, including "exceeds," by citing facts, is to subscribe to the idea that one can rate performance on such a simple scale. Don't fall for this trap.

Know whether your supervisor has quota constraints

Often, employers use a performance rating framework known as forced ranking or forced distribution in which they set quotas for the various levels of the performance rating system. For example, they might require supervisors to rate no more than one subordinate as "outstanding" and no more than 5% of their subordinates "exceeds." Except for employees with serious performance issues, the rest of their subordinates are then relegated to "meets."

Such a scheme is, of course, irrational. It rates people not according to their performance, but according to some target distribution of ratings, nearly independent of performance. Because the irrationality of the scheme conflicts so dramatically with the high standards of rationality required of knowledge workers, many find the hypocrisy intolerable.

The problem of designing a performance management system for knowledge work is much bigger than merely distinguishing "meets" from "exceeds." In many cases, the value of a knowledge worker's contributions might not be evident — even to experts — until years pass. Keep that in mind when someone tells you that your performance "meets expectations." Usually, they really don't know what to expect.

Be less concerned about an obviously unjust performance evaluation than about having accepted as legitimate a fundamentally irrational performance evaluation process.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

Give Me the Bad News First

I have good news and bad news. The bad news is that if you wait long enough, there will be some bad news. The good news is that the good news helps us deal with the bad news. And it helps a lot more if we get the bad news first.

TINOs: Teams in Name Only

Perhaps the most significant difference between face-to-face teams and virtual or distributed teams is their potential to develop from workgroups into true teams — an area in which virtual or distributed teams are at a decided disadvantage. Often, virtual and distributed teams are teams in name only.

Congruent Decision Making: II

Decision makers who rely on incomplete or biased information are more likely to make decisions that don't fit the reality of their organizations. Here's Part II of a framework for making decisions that fit.

Kerfuffles That Seem Like Something More

Much of what we regard as political conflict is a series of squabbles commonly called kerfuffles. They captivate us while they're underway, but after a month or two they're forgotten. Why do they happen? Why do they persist?

Personal Feasibility Decisions

When considering whether to exploit a rare but desirable opportunity, there is a risk that desire can overcome good sense. Having at hand a predefined framework for making such decisions reduces the risk of blundering by acting in haste.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info