Advertising or Business Promotion (second entry)
In the heart of a bustling corporate environment, a quiet revolution was underway. Clarence Donahue, a seasoned operator, found himself in an unexpected encounter with his regional manager, Higgins, after a routine quarterly review.
Clarence's meeting with Higgins, a lean, muscular man with cropped facial hair, was anything but ordinary. Higgins informed Clarence that he had been flagged as an asset risk to the company and recommended hiring someone more senior into his position.
The quarterly review cycle, a staple of corporate culture in many organizations, has its roots in the early 20th century. Performance evaluations and multi-source feedback methods trace back to military and industrial practices, with the modern concept of structured multi-rater or 360-degree feedback emerging around 1930. This method involves gathering performance input from supervisors, peers, subordinates, and sometimes customers.
However, the notion of feeding employees to alligators as a precursor to performance reviews appears to be a myth or humorous exaggeration, not a historically documented practice in human resources or organizational management.
Back in the present, Clarence was told he is part of a resource reallocation strategy that requires restructuring of his current position. Mark, another manager, suggested Clarence take a tone coaching program to ensure a smooth process should he ever decide to reapply at Stratos.
Clarence was offered appeals paperwork for his dismissal, which consisted of 1,054 pages. In response, Clarence expressed his intention to find something else where human input still matters. He slammed the door behind him after the meeting, marking the end of his tenure at Stratos.
As for the quarterly review cycle, it has undergone significant changes over the years. In the late 2020s, all that nonsense involving HR was done away with in favor of efficiency, and AI was used to summarize all faults with unbiased clarity.
Yet, the concept of quarterly performance reviews can be traced back to humanity's earliest days, serving as a means to blame someone when trade was slower than usual. This practice, thankfully, has evolved into a more structured and fair system, though it still carries the potential for human error and bias.
In a final touch, Clarence was offered a survey about his time at Stratos, which is only a few pages long. As he navigates his next steps, one can only hope that he finds an environment that values human input and fosters growth and development.
- Clarence happens to work in an industry that values scientific methods, as the concept of structured multi-rater or 360-degree feedback in the workplace-wellness and health-and-wellness sector has roots in military and industrial practices from the early 20th century.
- Despite the modern use of science in performance evaluations, the finance and business sector has been characterized by biases, human errors, and potential controversies, such as the situation Clarence found himself in when he was flagged as an asset risk to his company.
- As he explores new opportunities outside Stratos, Clarence may find an environment where human input is celebrated and valued, rather than being used as a tool for punitive measures like his quarterly reviews seemed to have been.
- In a world where artificial intelligence is increasingly utilized to streamline business operations, it is crucial for the science and business industries to continue collaborating to eliminate the bias and improve the fairness of evaluation methods in the workplace-wellness and health-and-wellness industry.
){kind=link}