About The CDC Appraisal Form

Oh my golly, we are required again to make a PAF, that invaluable Performance Appraisal Form. Lemme dig into my lumang baul. I think I have written something about this stuff.
Now, there you go... The letter below was written on September 9, 2003, during the T.O. process and I think I have touched on the PAF in there.. This letter was a drag and was sent to all the departments because a lot of dudes and dudettes complain about the prequalification things, then... (they're in bold here for emphasis). Read on ladiesless gentlemental.

To: EVP - VJIL
Chairman - Ad Hoc Committe on T.O.

Much as I would like to exalt and commend the management for its effort in promoting employees by means of expediting the Table of Organization, I must, in behalf of my colleagues, express some complaints regarding the present status of its implementation and therefore seek answer for the issues herein discussed. These sentiments are not my own alone, but are shared by all employees who had decided to apply to the job vacancies as posted on the bulletin boards.

The job posted on the bulletin boards enumerated all the qualifications necessary to attain such post. All employees deemed that those set of qualifications is complete, final and executory. The results of which is that many of us applied based solely on these qualifications.

However, just yesterday (Sept. 8, 2003), we were surprised to know that certain prequalifications were imposed. That, every applicant should pass a minimum of 65% of these prequalification named Ratings Form to be eligible for interview. We find this addendum or codicil to be an unethical imposition and thus question the sincerity of the whoel process. We have to ask, why is it only now that these prequalifications were imposed? Why not at the beginning, before even one job vacancy was posted on the bulletin boards?

Posting these prequalification before the actual job posting could have spared so many personnel from applying and prevented the accumulation of application papers and their attachement at the HRD office.

Among the inclusions subject for this complaint is the requirement of an applicant to have no tardiness for the past six months. Need we point out that tardiness on anyone's part could never subjugate the operation of the corporation? CDC was never a factory nor an assembly line that the absence of an employee for a certain amount of time causes a delay in production or caused dissatisfaction on a customer. Being late is never a manifestation that one could not perform in his work properly or proficiently. There are also legit reasons for being late.

Another one is the inclusion of the performance appraisal form. Time and time again, this has proven to be subjective and is dictated on whether there is a collusion or collision between the appraiser and the appraised. Even the most non-performing asset among us will give himself a high rate and the humbles among us will rate himself humbly so.

I find the whole Rating Form itself flawed. For instance, if a certain job vacancy has only one applicant and though he met the criteria as written on the job requirements but is in collision with his manager or direct supervisor and has legitimate reasons for accumulating six tardiness on a given month, will this necessarily mean that he will not get the post? Or will he be made an exemption and gain the post?

We feel that these new set of prequalifications should not be included as prerequisite for a job since their inclusion were not predetermined during the formulation of the job requirements. The rating forms should have been published before the actual job posting.

We ask the better judgement of the T.O. committee to forfeit these impositions and level the playing field devoid of unwarranted technicalities.

In behalf of my colleagues,

OCDC
PDO1-ECMD

ain't that great, you are who you think you are unless another person thinks that you are not what you think you are. Damn if you do, damn if you don't...

Till next time...

(originally posted - January 30, 2006)