My department just distributed these peer review things. Basically, people anonymously criticized their co-workers, some rather harshly. I got some negatives, and some positives. Some of the comments seemed a little insulting.
The dept is in a bit of an uproar, I'm told. I'm going to try to take it constructively, but a couple of comments did sting a bit. One nurse got some scathing comments, I hear, and she is taking it to the union. She is one of the crustier nurses, not the greatest bedside manner, but a good person. I don't know why the manager would allow such insults that I hear were printed on her review. They just quoted people's, well, un-Christian comments.
It's supposed to be helpful, but I think it's divisive and demoralizing. Does anyone have experience with this? Was it helpful in the long run, once the hullabaloo died down?
I worked in an ICU six years ago which had many problematic employees who were best buddies of the manager. He wanted us all to be friends and have parties at his house which counted as staff meetings. He shared anything and everything with his friends and they had access to every file in his office. Nothing was confidential.
The comments made on the peer reviews against the senior staff were beyond false or petty, they were malicious. The process created unbelievable animosity in an already highly dysfunctional unit. Several employees refused to sign their yearly evals due to the vicious comments copied from the peer reviews. The peer review process turned what was a decent work environment into a hornets nest of suspicion and hostility.
I took the forms that I was given to fill out home with me and threw them away. The last thing I heard is that the manager somehow is now a director and still does peer reviews but most of the staff throw them away.That director can not recruit anyone from within the hospital due to it's reputation for bad practices, as well as dishonest and immature behavior.
I plan on throwing the reviews away when I get them. I refuse to take part. Rarely can something good come out of this. I'm just too old, and I have too many other options should it become necessary to keep my job.
It's no different than bedside reporting. Peer evaluation is a neutral thing. It's the dysfunctional people who turn it into a disaster.
There's a lot of good feedback to be obtained from a peer -- unless your peer has a personality disorder. Peer reviews are a TOOL. It's like saying a hammer is a bad thing because people use it to bash each other's skulls in. The problem is in the people.
An already dysfunctional unit like ICUMaggie mentioned is not a good unit to use peer evaluations in.
Another couple of reasons to not use peer evaluation is a manager who has the same personality disorder as the catty nurses who get some kind of 'thrill' from undermining or insulting his/her coworkers. A decent, reasonable manager ought to already KNOW this reviews ought to be reviewed FIRST by the manager, if she/he cares a whit about her staff's morale. It's just not that difficult! If the manager gets a 'thrill' from conflict and dysfunction on the unit, you can be sure it will grow and be encouraged in the staff.
There's not a better way to get the measure of a person than how they behave when they are under stress.
Specializes in OR, Nursing Professional Development.
Well, it's that time of year again. I absolutely dread having to do these darn things- even though comments are relatively short, there's a lot of sections that require comments. I feel like I never know what to write and probably spend more time agonizing over it than I should. The thing is, I hate knowing that what I write could potentially affect someone's raise (yes, the direct supervisor writes the official review, but still… input matters) and try to show everything in a positive light. I actually find reviewing myself even harder than reviewing others.
I also hate the whole Magnet requires it thing. Isn't Magnet about nursing? What if nursing would rather not do peer reviews and utilize the system I still advocate: set raise for everyone, with set percentage decrease per write up or set percentage increase for commendations?
I see this is an older thread but I know it's a hot topic at my job. Peer reviews (often called 360-degree feedback) are used in many industries. I understand the theory but if the process is not done properly it can do more harm than good!! Employees and managers need the skills to understand the rationale, the process, responsibilities of everyone involved, facilitating discussions, making plans for development when using peer reviews. There is a VERY SERIOUS LACK of training on how to correctly conduct peer reviews and how to use the information for company and employee improvement. From what I have experienced many people on both sides of the review are unprofessional ( due to ignorance of the process).
Thankfully my current manager does not have official peer reviews, but I still got feedback from peers in other ways. Thankfully this year my review was positive.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
As a manager of programs and people I find peer reviews to be worthless but loved by lazy managers.
Yep, I pay attention to how you work with peers and with patients and with physicians, etc.
Yes, I may actually ask some of them about specifics of your function in a case or particular situation.
Mostly your evaluation from me is going to be a summary of your performance that we have already discussed over the last 6-12 months. No surprises, no blind sides, no popularity contest.
Nitfree
30 Posts
In ED you have to trust each others decisions. I appreciate the comments . It helps me to my move on