Performance reviews
Performance reviews are like Grape Nut’s Flakes, neither grapes nor nuts. They don’t improve performance and they don’t review well either.
Three reasons traditional performance reviews don’t work.
#1. Extended time gaps
The time between establishing goals and reviewing goals may be months. Any performance issue that can wait months to be addressed doesn’t need to be addressed at all.
#2. Goals and objectives aren’t supported
Organizations and individuals act like religious fanatics practicing “name it claim it” beliefs. They believe talking is the same as doing. For example, telling an employees to develop phone skills without training frustrates dedicated people.
#3. They focus on weakness rather than strengths
Organizations go further by focusing on the strengths of employees rather than weaknesses. Yes, everyone needs to improve and weaknesses roadblocking organizational efficiency and effectiveness must be addressed. However, focusing on weaknesses creates negative work environments and isn’t as effective as leveraging and enhancing strengths.
A note on performance issues: Any skill gap or performance issue that negatively impacts an organization’s mission should be addressed quickly. It becomes fodder for performance reviews when an employee resists improvement.
If there is a layer of dust on last year’s performance review, your organization wasted its resources.
*****
How would you improve performance reviews?
*****
Related Posts:
Burn Your Job Description – An article advocating for Vision Descriptions
Strengthen Strengths – A real life example of the power of focusing on strengths rather than weakenesses
Here’s an author who advocates for doing away with performance reviews. http://blogs.bnet.com/mba/?p=2199&tag=col1;post-2238
*****
Leadership Freak
Dan Rockwell
Dear Dan,
A debatable topic, yet an effective management tool if implemented well. It is quite useful exercise to recognize good performance and reward adequately. Good transparency in the system with fairness can motivate employees to give their best all the time. It can also serve as a basis for the needed training and development of individuals to remain high performers.
It becomes a painful exercise when the focus is to pin-point weaknesses and punish employees with humiliation. An assessor needs to spend enough time to have one-to-one interactions with an assessee. Moreover, the objectives of this exercise needs to be spell out clearly in the beginning with defined KRAs and the measurement parameters.
HR plays a major role to ensure success with clear guidelines and the overall support it requires to provide to win the confidence of all employees.
Dr. Mrunal K. Asher
ITM Business School, Kharghar,
Navi Mumbai.INDIA
Dr Mrunal,
Thanks for your comment. I appreciate you bringing KRA’s to the conversation. Clearly, Key Results Areas are important components that clarify focus, determine training needs, set goals and objectives, and determine performance measures.
You always add something to the conversation.. thanks
Dan
Hi Dan
sorry but I can’t agree with you there. I think as Dr Mrunal said, that Performance Reviews (PR) can be a very useful tool if implemented well. I work in Management Development (MD) and we are responsible for our companies PR tool. We have a very good system that demands that the correct amount of time is put into the process to make it motivating for all employees. We focus on all aspects of our employees, strengths and weaknesses and we back it up with training and action plans. The MD network then follows up on a monthly basis all people that need to be followed, from people that need improvement to people that are high potentials. We also do this on a world-wide basis with 60.000 employees. We also have half yearly objectives that are followed by both the manager and the employee and not just at the end of the period.
Companies have to be serious about their employees, they need to be involved and then the PR process can be a great assest.
Karen,
Sounds like you are doing it right. Thanks for your comments and a wonderful explanation of what you are doing right!
Regards,
DAn
One of the greatest weaknesses I find with performance reviews is the failure to adequately develop goals. Another key area of weakness surfaces when a supervisor assigns prescriptive goals his subordinate has absolutely no control over and expects his subordinate to deliver – a recipe for disaster.
Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham have conducted some excellent research on “goal-setting theory” and how to use goals to stimulate task motivation.
For example read their article at
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:eJhQujLp6RMJ:www.cs.cmu.edu/~dabbish/locke.pdf+edwin+locke+goal+setting+theory&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgNZBaRyvxeJQITzv1jY3AUEz-dKBuyJ1iA6PLde7EqaxjX_v_tSA0MSbPhSQxTZBZS2iwqlDCMyBhjFnIoCcVp1sOvTynJJYgCHFvszn1kHGJ9OoFG3N53zahxNzwMPJXBw3i3&sig=AHIEtbSPtgvsGKw4K1il1eEjp7Sxixriag
Jim,
You consistently add value to the conversation. I’m blown away by your generosity.
Best to you,
Dan
Jim is into: Enhancing Performance and Value through Systems Thinking
http://www.leemanngroup.com/
More is received through giving than taking.
Thanks for the link to the article Jim, great stuff!
Dan, I think performance reviews as they are traditionally implemented do have several problems that prevent them from being effective professional development tools.
I agree that immediate feedback (when possible) is much more effective than “annual” feedback.
For me, the most disturbing part of an evaluation had to do with the fact that my supervisor had never, ever, counseled me about the behavior that was considered “negative.” I also believed that this behavior ended up on my evaluation b/c our paid consultants’ office was right outside of mine whereas my supervisor’s was completely across the building, as far as logistically possible. That led to me feeling (rightly or wrongly) that these consultants with whom I had become friendly and developed a trust level were in fact feeding my supervisor performance information about me instead of including me in a team that could have addressed the reasons they were on our premises in the first place.
When I look back on that time, I concur that my supervisor had legitimate concerns, and I guess in all honesty I would have felt defensive about any counseling he gave me about the topic, whether as part of a formal evaluation or a more casual supervisor-employee conversation. But the way it was presented did a lot more to damage my morale than other approaches would have.
Enough venting! Thanks for raising an important issue.
Hi Paula,
Love your story. You mention one of the biggest no no’s of performance reviews. I’ll call it the performance review ambush. This happens when some unexpected deficiency comes up.
Whether readers agree or not with my comments re: Performance reviews, I think EVERYONE agrees there should NEVER be surprises.
Regards,
Dan
You can read Paul’s thoughts on her blog at: http://www.waytenmom.blogspot.com/
Hi Dan,
I for one say down with the annual performance reviews! There are very few organizations that use this tool effectively and for its intended purpose.
Performance feedback is an on-going and daily practice that ought to be practiced to leverage strengths and address opportunities among employees. Managers that spend their time trying to recall the last 12 months of an employees performance are missing opportunities to have an immediate impact on performance today.
All too often I have seen managers delay the performance review process because it is simply too involved and they don’t have the time. So an employee receives his annual review on month 14. This serves to demotivate staff as they lie in wait for that review. In the meantime, performance suffers as a result.
I have also had a lot of managers tell me and have actually been told myself that no one will ever reach the top category be it a 4 or a 6, on a performance review because no one is perfect. I agree no one is perfect, but that doesn’t mean they don’t deserve a top rating. If no one can get a top rating, then why have it? Again it serves as a demotivator.
Goals are often produced as a result of an annual performance evaluation and then those goals aren’t reviewed on a frequent basis, if at all. The review is sent to HR, put in the employee file and we wait until next year to as you say, dust it off. A majority of managers view the annual performance review as an event rather than a process. And once they get done they move on to the next one. How does this serve the employee?
I am strong believer that every employee should know exactly where they stand in terms of their performance every single day. Managers, employees and organizations would be better served to focus on daily, on-going coaching, goal setting and feedback.
Thanks for the post!
Kelly
Kelly,
Thanks for giving concrete examples of performance review problems. I appreciate you adding to the conversation. You always share generously and from your wealth of experiences.
Best to you,
Dan
You can read more of Kelly’s wisdom at: http://theexperiencefactor.com/the-x-blog/
Do you, as manager/leader, tend to look at performance reviews as onerous? The onerous performance reviews…well if that isn’t foreshadowing… Do the employees scatter like the wind when performance reviews are mentioned? Are the reviews regularly late? Perhaps the leader needs to revisit his/her role in the process or at least shift his/her paradigm, same for the staff.
I can’t argue with your point #2, so will take #s 1 & 3 to task.
#1 Extended time periods between goals and review–why? You are too busy for your staff to give productive feedback? Ouch, don’t like what you see in that mirror? If you are leading/serving your staff well, as they set and hopefully achieve goals that has to be a constant. Perhaps quarterly reviews, not formal sit downs necessarily, more of a status update and inquire what additional resource/training is needed to achieve the goals and/or formulate revised or new goals. Perhaps a variation on MBWA with some minor note taking.
(The negative performance issues have to be addressed as they occur or again the leader is not doing his/her job. There should be NO surprises in the performance review. There has to already be a plan of correction for negative issues and that can be reviewed/revised.)
#3 Who says the performance review needs to focus on weaknesses (reframe-opportunities)?
If the performance review is a time period summary of performance AND you are keeping that employee on, then perhaps it could be a time of celebration and of appreciation of the performance for that time period. Definitely it can identify continued opportunities for growth AND the successes.
Have you considered endorsing the ‘annual’ performance review as a celebration and that you are going to take that person out to lunch, make lunch, whatever to celebrate that service? During that time, your employee has your undivided attention on ‘neutral turf’.
How this time of reflection and future planning is presented is key.
For an entirely different blog, would the actual content of a performance review be worth discussing?
Doc,
I love it when you take things to task! Great comments and suggestions. I’m always delighted when I see your name on the comment list. I know you are busy so thank you for taking time to give back to the community.
Hmmm, taking people to lunch for a performance review? Are you nuts?? :=)
Regards,
Dan
Excellent! I have long thought that preformance reviews are wasted time when done in the traditional manner….yearly. The problems that arise need to be dealt with and then left alone, otherwise it was not that important or it aggrivates an already tense situation. I think to be of any real value they need to be done on a quarterly basis with problems being adressed when they arise.
Matt,
Thanks for highlighting the problem of timeliness. It seems everyone who writes about feedback indicates it should be given as close to the event as possible. Yet PR’s delay feedback so long that the feedback becomes irrelevant.
In addition, employees always discount the good feedback in situations where negative feedback is included. The feedback sandwich of a good word – negative feedback – a good word only serves to make everyone ignore the good word.
Best to you,
DAn
100% agree with your sentiments. Performance reviews are a waste of time. It deserves more attetnion – Perhaps I will take up the banner and do a piece on this in my own blog.
Check out this series from Aubrey Daniels. He explains why performance reviews don’t work, and what can be done about them: http://aubreydanielsblog.com/category/performance-appraisal/
dmkasprzak,
Thanks for your comment and for a link to a great video. Aubrey Daniels rocks.
I’m loving that LF readers offer useful resources on important topics.
Best to you,
Dan
Dan,
This is probably the most dreaded and controversial functions that can turn into annual nightmares for some, both management and employees. It carries that “love hate” feelings, particulaly when the weaknesses are unsubstantiable and riddled with personal reprisals.
As part of my HR infrastructure turnaround initiatives to enculture a more open, transparent, interactive and professional workplace environment, I rolled out a formal Performance Management System, that incorporates the Appraisals.
Eventhough, I find the credibility of it’s execution far from my intended expectation, it has brought significant change to the scope of communication on the job. When you work in a place where managers are constantly crying, “I am too busy, I don’t have TIME”, rationalising the proposition of performance reviews can be very challenging. Given the situation, all I ever wanted was to create a platform for people to formally discuss expectations, goals, KPIs, recognitions, resources, trainings, etc. sadly, what started out Quarterly has ended up Annually.
The interesting and bizzare part is, “I have never had my own formal performance reviews over the years!. What can I say of seeking inspiration on leadership by example.
I wonder why people get so uptight with addressing “weakness”. After all, are we all not fallible and inperfect in some ways. So, what’s wrong in discussing and working on a competency “gap” that needs fixing. If it sounds demoralising, then just use,”Areas for Improvement”. We must not confuse this with the need for talent placement. If there is major mismatch in the talent, then it opens up a can of worms on the entire HR acquisition process.
The biggest test and challenge of Reviews lies in validating and communicating the results, in particular those relating to soft skills behaviour. That’s why it is recommended as frequent and close to events and accomplishments. Another crucial missing link that undermines reviews is failure to “motivate”. Sometimes, it causes untold damage when tied to “rewards and recognition” that do not live up to the values fo equity and fairplay. Just visualise the review of those guys in AIG who got paid bonuses to keep them on the job !
So, are reviews good or bad?. For me, it is good, as a system. All it requires is commitment and allegiance to the fundamental values such as integrity, transparency, altruism (theory Y believers), co-creation, progressive, trust, etc. And, what it doesn’t need is being “hijacked” for personal agendas.
It’s all connected to maturity and growth. Now, how many are daring enough to open-up their system to 360 reviews.
Yuvarajah,
Once again you’ve left a useful, thought provoking comment.
When you brought up “addressing weaknesses” I thought about the power of vision to help people work on weaknesses. In other words, people are excited to learn ways to achieve a vision they’ve personally embraced. When I played basket-ball, I didn’t mind the coach correcting me as long as I believed his correction would help me and the team win.
Regards to you,
Dan
Thanks, Dan and all. This is timely for the organization I serve. We seem to need a major reframing of what has become a tedious yearly event. I wonder about how swapping the word “contribution” for “performance” might not help us signal a change–assuming the process actually delivers dialogue about about meaningful work activity engaged in during digestible time periods. I don’t want to offer cosmetic fluff but hope to disconnect a new process from old baggage. I’d love to hear feedback.
Dave,
I wish I would have come around to your comment sooner. I appreciate the idea of “contribution” as a substitute for performance.
I recently read about using “performance reviews” to reward activities that reflect the company’s values. For example, companies could reward learning by establishing training/certification programs that are tied to raises.
I wonder if a commitment to give timely/immediate positive and negative feedback would eliminate most of the traditional performance review items. If that happened, performance reviews could become more forward looking rather than backward looking events.
I’m going to give this some thought… perhaps another blog is in order.
Thanks for your comment,
Dan
If there is no review of performance then it makes it very hard to see if there is progress.
Just like an athlete reviews their performance to see if they can reach their goals, employees should get their performance reviewed to ensure they are improveing.
Regards
Bob
http://www.performancereviewtemplate.com/
Bob,
My spam filter captured your comment and I just found it.
Thank you for adding to the conversation.
Dan
I don’t think performance reviews are necessarily a bad thing but I do think that a majority of employers do them so poorly that they really do become a waste of resources and more often than not they have simply become a “discipline” tool and that is certainly not effective or even leadership.
Kim,
I concur with your point about discipline. What should be a celebratory look backward and an exciting look forward has become a pathetic attempt at explaining where you should do better.
Thanks for dropping in, its good to see you.
Best to you,
Dan
Kim’s recent blog “airhead or apple pie” is at: http://kimhogue.blogspot.com/2010/05/airhead-or-apple-pie.html
Hi Dan,
Yes, the current ‘cultural conserve’ of performance reviews needs reviewing. When we were brought in to an organisation a few years ago as part of a wider cultural shift, the objective was to shift from a paradigm of “We’ll have performance conversations with you once a year” to “Let’s make this a place where performance conversations are happening all the time”. This took out a lot of the fear that both managers and staff felt about the whole thing.
Both managers and staff dreaded the annual reviews because managers had ‘stored up’ things that needed addressing to the point that conversations became ‘difficult’; and staff wondered if they were on the right track or not and were sometimes taken aback to find out that there were things that they could have corrected months earlier, had they been informed in a more timely fashion.
We worked with the managers to develop their abilities to have performance conversations when they were needed…to have courage in the first instance and not in the tenth. To deal with things when they were still small and easier to correct and before they got out of hand. To bring things up when they were still performance issues and not when, months down the track, they became about the person and their inadequacies. And, yes, to work from a strengths base (what are you good at and you can use to build on), not from a deficit base ( what are you failing at and please just stop it).
This story has a happy ending. Performance review time became a time when both manager and staff could express appreciation for their respective contributions to making the workplace productive and both could meditate on ‘where to now’ and look forward to new challenges and new development opportunities.
Just my two cents.
Warmly,
John
John,
What a great story! Thanks for leaving it here for the benefit of the community.
Rockin’
Dan
Great post Dan,
For me annual PRs are a thing of the past. I long ago abandoned them for daily interaction and constant feedback. I now run a small company which makes this much easier, but I believe all companies can benefit.
One concept that lead me here is not tying raises to Performance Reviews. We establish a base salary for positions and annually review cost of living increases. All other monetary gains are tied to the profit performance of the company.
PRs are usually dreaded by employees and managers alike. We spend time teaching our leaders “how” to give routine feedback and “why” this is important to the employee. When people can feel a mire immediate connection to a behavior, both good and bad, the reasons for needed change or improvement are more likely to occur.
Based on my experience over the last 4years, I will never go back to standard Performance Appraisal systems.
That sounds wonderful Mike! That’s the sort of culture that would make your place a ‘Best Place to Work’ I reckon. You’ve also got that really key bit of investing time in teaching leaders ‘HOW’ to give feedback, which is often missed out.
John
I recently added to my collection of teamwork study summaries a relevant brief titled, “Review Finds 20 Fair Practices for Performance Reviews.”
A research team found 18 articles in peer-reviewed journals addressing the criteria people use to judge whether performance reviews were done fairly. It provides scientific support for many of Dan’s and my fellow commenters’ points.
With Dan’s permission, here is the link: http://www.suddenteams.com/teamres/manage_perfreviews.htm.
Jim,
Thank you for your comment and adding to the conversation.
Relevant links are always welcome.
The article you mention is concise and practical. It adds value to the conversation.
All the best,
Dan
Great article, nice work!
Another of my favourite articles on this very subject published in the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122426318874844933.html
Ben,
Thanks for taking the time to add a resource to the discussion. I appreciate it.
Cheers,
Dan
I couldn’t agree more Dan. With 25 years experience at various companies and organizational levels on both the receiving and the giving end of formal performance reviews, and having debated their merits in my leadership course for the past five years, I’ve come down pretty firmly on the side of banning performance reviews. Or at the very least divorcing them from compensation. Unless you want to motivate with money. But there are better and less costly ways to motivate. And there are better and less costly ways to provide feedback. Frankly, I’ve conlcuded formal performance management has more to do with Legal than HR. I see it as an unnecessary burden–known in Lean circles as waste. Just my two cents.
Maurice,
So glad you dropped in to share your two cents. Tell me what you really think? 😉 It’s always great to hear the voice of experience, especially when its an affirmation.
Best regards to you,
Dan
The ideal may sound good but the problem is that few if any managers know how to do reviews well.
It is a huge waste of time and money.