Q. You promised to post your annual performance reviews. Now, you say you won't? Why?!
A. Three reasons. It would invade the privacy of a current employee. Also, I originally promised to post my evaluations under duress. Finally, while I've been a public figure since getting my first byline in September 1985 at The Pine Bluff (Ark.) Commercial, I'm not a politician, so I don't feel it's necessary to subject myself to that kind of micro-scrutiny. Without being asked, I've already volunteered my annual income during my last year at USA Today. I've posted my Gannett stock ownership (one share; I have not and do not sell short), plus other financial disclosures, in the secret world of Gannett Blog.
My job? Your job? Discuss!
I guard my time carefully, because blogging can consume your life, if you let it. Ask Sparky. (Wait: don't. He's heard enough about Gannett this week!) So, I focus on the most important stuff: public-service, First Amendment-style enterprise. In any case, I'm the only one looking into the Gannett Foundation, Corporate's pay practices, and joining a handful of shareholders in challenging Chairman CEO Craig Dubow at the annual meeting. That's the hard work.
The easier work is rounding up links to good stories, broadcasts, new digital ventures, original advertising campaigns and other terrific efforts -- then posting them on Gannett Blog, with a couple graphs saying why they stand out. Anyone can do that -- including Gannett's Communications Department. But you gotta meet me at least halfway.
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green rail, upper right.
As far as I'm concerned, those wanting to see Jim's performance reviews should share their names and performance reviews. Eh!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, there is no reason to see the reviews. Most know that at least half of the time Gannett performance reviews aren't necessarily accurate, anyway.
Jim's work with this blog stands on its own.
Jim, personally I could care less if you post your reviews or not. IME, reviews don't always paint an accurate picture anyway - too many variables involved.
ReplyDeleteI would like to ask a question regarding your post though. You say you agreed to post your reviews under duress. Can you explain? What duress and how was it applied? Just curious as to how any of us, if that's what your referring to, have the power to impose duress upon you.
Thanks.
Anonymous@3:25 p.m. posted the following on April 26, in the comments section on a post titled, "How to prepare to question CEO Dubow.''
ReplyDeleteHow to flush out a hypocrite
To Jim Hopkins: Your performance during the last two days indicates someone with serious journalistic deficiencies.
We are requesting that you post your last five job performance evaluations here at the site. Failure to do so indicates you cannot refute the allegations and/or that you have something to hide.
Also, we would like to see any information about any time you were perceived as a threat to credibility or to other employees, whether they were management personnel or your peers.
Please comply fully and immediately.
Sincerely,
A Genuine Journalism Watchdog Who Is Disgusted with You
Here's a tinyurl to the comment: http://tinyurl.com/pot387
That's what I call threatening.
Not to toot my own horn, I always thought I was WAY better than any of my reviews and some of them were just plain mean, especially after I nearly topped out reporter's pay. I learned quickly that there would be no more raises, regardless of how hard I worked.
ReplyDeleteI have mine, took them with me when I "graduated" from a Gannett newspaper. They are no longer important.
Jim's performance reviews are no longer important, either.
come to think of it, I remember a eye-opening thread on this blog that pointed out that at some newspapers, nobody ever got a superior review for budget reasons.
Jim, 9:26 here. Thank you for answering my question.
ReplyDeleteI know it's easy to sit on the sidelines and arm chair quarterback but if I might, I'd like to offer one tiny bit of advice. Take your own instructions and just ignore the abusive posters. Reacting to them gives them way more power than they deserve.
:-)
I don't care to waste my time looking at your reviews. However, here are the three reasons you won't share them:
ReplyDelete1. liar
2. talks out of both sides of mouth
3. liar
If you commit you should follow through. Otherwise, don't commit even when pushed to do so. Be a man.
Did you just say you challenged Dubow? He owned you. He was classy and respectful when he responded to your weak attempts to provoke him into saying something impulsive or rude.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how it was at Jim's papers but I have essentially written every one of my performance reviews at GCI since the first year that I was employed.
ReplyDeleteAnd this was a practice requested by the supervisors. At first, I tried to be fair and looked at both my many successes and the areas where I saw a need for improvement. The past few years, as I have become increasingly disillusioned with the company, I have given myself the most incredible reviews anyone could hope for.
Fuck it, I thought. If they can't even be bothered to pay attention there's no reason for me to get anything less than stellar marks.
That said, a supervisor still has to check off the performance ratings boxes and we've been told that it's an unwritten rule that nobody ever get the highest rating. So, I've got a drawer full of fabulous reviews that show me just one step short of perfect.
9:47 -- If Dubow was classy and respectful at the meeting he must be turning over a new leaf. I firmly believe that actions speak louder than words, and he hasn't made a move in the last two years that comes across as either classy or respectful. Unless, of course, you get kudos for respecting your own bank account.
ReplyDelete10:27 am speaks my truth!
ReplyDeleteGannett performance reviews mean nothing. They were and are merely another abuse tactic by management. It didn't matter how many stories I wrote, how many hours I worked, how many times I filled in for others because the sports editor was "desperate" for my help, he still downgraded me because he was a gutless, ass-kissing shill for upper management who would've sold his own mother down the river.
ReplyDelete