Welcome to corporate America, journos! Reporters at The Washington Post will now be ranked with a multiple-choice job-performance assessment each year.
Accompanying an annual written evaluation, each reporter will be described as: “frequently exceeds expectations,” “sometimes exceeds expectations,” “meets expectations,” “sometimes fails to meet expectations,” or “frequently does not meet expectations.”
“It’s like a third-grade type of evaluation system,” said one Post staffer.
“I initiated this because we’ve had complaints over the years from reporters who would be evaluated and feel that their evaluations were inconclusive,” said Peter Perl, assistant managing editor for training and career development.
This past summer, Mr. Perl set out to overhaul The Post’s evaluation system and met with three senior Post staffers: Milton Coleman, deputy managing editor; Shirley Carswell, assistant managing editor; and Tom Wilkinson, assistant managing editor. Then the group’s ideas were presented to executive editor Len Downie and managing editor Philip Bennett.
In October, Jill Dutt and Sandy Sugawara, top editors in the financial section, spearheaded the process, delivering evaluations to staffers.
“Many of you will find these evaluations to be more brief than what we’ve done in the past,” wrote Ms. Dutt, in an internal memo obtained by The Observer.
Ms. Dutt wrote that Messrs. Downie and Bennett read each evaluation and “don’t have time for long recitations of all the stories each reporter has done over the past year.”
Soon, reporters across the newspaper will come forth to be judged: Mr. Perl estimated that only about 100 of 800 newsroom staffers have received evaluations under the new system.
This evaluation process, combined with the infamous Downie memo of Nov. 14, which forecasted newsroom reductions, has concerned some staffers that layoffs could be on the horizon. “It’s been one thing after another,” said a Post staffer.
“Obviously, the timing of me doing this is unfortunate, because some people—a minority of people—think this is a prelude to getting rid of people,” said Mr. Perl.
Mr. Perl, who counts 27 years as a Newspaper Guild member and officer, said that he wouldn’t “design an evaluation system for that purpose.”
“I’m quite familiar with people who are upset by the process,” said Mr. Perl. “It tends to be the very small group of people who got the lowest ranking, or those who are philosophically opposed to boiling down someone’s performance to a rating.”
According to Post staffers, there are other concerns, too.
The new evaluation system still doesn’t take into account a reporter’s growing role outside of the print edition, according to one staffer.
“At a time when our paper is going heavily into the Web, the evaluation still focuses mostly on the newspaper,” said a Post staffer.
“The ultimate thing you’re judged on is whether you got onto A1,” continued the staffer. “If you didn’t, you failed. A1 is still the gold standard. I don’t think they know how many times you go on the radio or News Channel 8.”
However, after receiving their evaluation, Post staffers then get to write a self-evaluation—with the opportunity to include such information.
Another Post staffer said that the new system is “a much more rigorous process” and more “like what they do in corporate America.”
The staffer continued: “Before, if someone was a mediocre performer, they would let it slide. Now, they’re trying to give those people signals that we’re not so thrilled with their performance.”
“It’s a wake-up call for some people to improve what they are doing,” said Mr. Perl.
You may reach Michael Calderone via email at: mcalderone@observer.com .
