Self-evaluations and performance appraisals — everyone hates writing them and few enjoy being the receiver. Is all the angst and consternation really worth the time and energy invested? Are we kidding ourselves in thinking they really impact performance or retain good people? I question it, as do a good number of business leaders — companies such as Deloitte, Adobe, Microsoft, and Accenture, who have eliminated the annual process, aiming towards a more frequent, less formulaic, feedback program.
Maybe they are on to something.
Let’s not take this the wrong way — I am a strong advocate of performance feedback. It’s just the way we presently approach it that doesn’t make sense.
Ask Yourself…
Is annual agile? If we want to aspire to be as responsive and flexible an organization as we claim; do annual performance appraisals of our talent make sense or fit into the model?
Do people strive for once a year trophies? In a workplace where many of the employees grew up accustomed to getting a trophy every Saturday afternoon, whether they won or not, do we really believe they will wait 365 days to be told they are valued?
Why does the Fitbit model work? One of the reasons physical measurement devices are so popular is the immediate and constant feedback. While no one can expect their supervisor to take their performance pulse daily, wouldn’t it be practical to do it more than once a year?
What does “3” really mean? Oh those Likert scales. You know “on a scale of 1-5 how would you rate _____. There are a few problems with this.
- It’s a label not a description of a behavior.
- Different raters have different ideas as to what each level means. (I once had a boss who “refused” to give anyone the top rating because “no one is perfect.” I asked “then why have it?”
- Number systems put the focus on the wrong point and can be influenced by the writer’s need to curve the scores of the team. “Everyone can’t be a ‘4’” (we’re told).
- People play it safe and give themselves or others a “3.” It tells you little and can hide a lot.
Do most managers really take into account the entire year or is out-of-sight really out-of-mind? It’s almost impossible for the raters to give equal consideration to something that occurred nine months ago than it is to an accomplishment of six weeks back. In fact, I’m fond of telling people, “If you’re going to make a big impact, aim for the end of the fiscal year.”
Isn’t performance management a major part of their day-to-day job? Or are your leaders really only managing tasks and timetables most of the time?
Do most managers know how to give performance evaluations? It’s a skill and one that can be taught but should never be assumed. Practice, frequency, and modeling are the best ways to increase comfort, quality, and outcome.
Are people really honest on their self-evaluations? The simple answer is “no.” I help my coaching clients create theirs and the ultimate reader is always on our mind. Not too much bragging, but don’t give them something they can blame you for. Seem inclusive but look like an individual contributor. By the time you finish this tale it’s more fantasy than fact.
Does coaching happen in performance appraisals? Rarely. Many leaders do not see coaching as a piece of the process or their responsibility. When managers have regular and constructive conversations with their employees, coaching is more likely to happen naturally.
Can anyone devise a form that is appropriate for all levels? Hundreds, probably thousands, of appraisal instruments have been created (many at high cost). Some are better than others but it is an impossible task to design one that fits all people in your organization.
What is being tested in many of the Fortune 500 companies is regular, quality, conversations. Most have gone to at least quarterly, with the assumption development talks occurs regularly. These are discussions about growth in the job, interaction with colleagues, goals, aspirations, and opportunities for more experience and learning, as well as how the supervisor can better assist the employee in achieving them. They are not about meeting a deadline or hitting the target but about how individuals are performing in their work and where they are growing. Most performance appraisals do not include this.
In many ways high performance is assumed and the focus. If in fact standards are not being met, then meetings should be about issues and need for improvement, occur in real time, and be specific with stated consequences. This is also the time to sort out differences or misunderstands. Nothing festers, nothing goes unsaid.
As a mentor of mine once said, “These all should be consultations not revelations.”
With today’s workplace setting, its members and processes are changing rapidly to meet the demands of the new environment. What has fallen behind is the way we measure and communicate performance and career development to employees. Addressing some of the issues I have mentioned will bring us closer to meeting the needs, demands, and expectations of all participants in the workplace.
Leave a Reply