Sam Zell's Performance Evaluation

Sam Zell has apparently found it necessary to force his managers and editors to rank the talent of their employees. This made the Retch think of the gander. In the spirit of the 360-degree evaluation, an abysmal bit of corporate goo at the Tribune Co. in which workers evaluate their bosses and vice versa to no effect, here's my ranking of Zell's performance to date, delivered on an actual LA Times evaluation grid:

Performance Area Ratings

	Exceptional	Meets	Needs	Unsatisfactory
		Standards	Work
Accuracy				Said he would not interfere with editorial operations. Instead, he has wondered about firing a reporter, emphasized his Republican leanings and criticized individual stories.
Writing Editing		Unlike his lackey, Lee Abrams, Zell's blogs have been generally free from grammar and spelling errors
Reporting			Claims not to be a reporter, but a "business man."
Critical Thinking			"Innovative Ideas" are mostly rehashed news biz trends from the early 90s and 80s.
Effectiveness				He bought the company at $34 a share. Now it's worth $10.50 a share. 'Nuff said.
Creativity	Exceptional, if creativity means delusional
Teamwork			Calls employees "partners," then fires them.
Responsibility				Has abdicated any sense of duty to local communities or journalism
Reader Awareness		Aware that readers are fleeing his smaller product
Overall Rating			Needs work. As in, get a new job other than CEO of Tribune.

Performance Rating Descriptions

Exceptional: Consistently achieves results that surpass the Los Angeles Times’ high standards for the position. This rating is reserved for employees who regularly excel.

Exceeds standards: Frequently achieves results that surpass the Los Angeles Times’ high standards for the position.

Meets standards: Consistently achieves the Los Angeles Times’ high standards for the position.

Needs improvement: Meets most of the requirements, but needs to further develop skills related to the position.

Unsatisfactory: Despite normal supervision and direction, the employee has consistently not met the requirements of the position. Corrective action is required.

Follow-up Action

Should there be a follow-up review in 3 months to assess improvement and to determine whether the employee should remain in the current position? Yes________________ No_______________