TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
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
review.
Michael Priestley
mpriestley -at- vnet -dot- ibm -dot- com
Disclaimer: speaking on my own behalf, not IBM's.
