Re: Peer Reviews

Subject: Re: Peer Reviews
From: mpriestley -at- VNET -dot- IBM -dot- COM
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 10:51:15 EDT

Paul Cheverie writes:
>colleagues who have a vested interest in furthering their own careers. It is
>conflict of interest, pure and simple. (Unless of course you are one of
>those poor people who actually believe that the average human being is
>motivated by altruistic principles.)

Peer reviews are a standard part of performance evaluation around here
(I'm talking about _general_ review of performance here, not review of a
particular piece of writing). I've had no problems, nor have I heard of
problems. Now, maybe I'm just working with an unusually wonderful and
altruistic group of people (and they are great people), but your portrayal
of the process seems a tad pessimistic.

I'm a little confused by the conflict-of-interest comment. Personally
speaking, when I have someone competent working with me, I try to ensure they
_keep_ working with me: it's important to me, and to my performance, to have
good people to work with. So it's in my best interest to be honest on a

Michael Priestley
mpriestley -at- vnet -dot- ibm -dot- com
Disclaimer: speaking on my own behalf, not IBM's.

Previous by Author: Re: BAD classroom exercises
Next by Author: Re: Win95
Previous by Thread: Re: HELP: simple procedural sentence
Next by Thread: STC Philly Metro meeting - 9/7/95

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads