How significant is the annual performance evaluation in the search for the ideal work environment?

One of the primary concerns in organisations is the annual employee performance evaluation. One on one, periodic evaluations starting from the top down, or from the bottom up, 360 degrees, evaluations for a promotion, a bonus, etc. All with a precise purpose provided to all participants, by the consultant, coach, manager, or HR. Evaluations are followed by a session analysing the results, which in turn is followed by collective or individual feedback.

Obviously, our organisation also went through the formal evaluation experience. At first, we adopted the classical evaluation from top to bottom.  We tailored a questionnaire for professional services firms to our own needs and ended up with about 38 questions. So far so good! I don’t believe there was any aspect of our firm’s activity we didn’t cover, from client service to the dress code.

Some of you might smile when reading this. I feel the need to say at this point that we are lawyers, not HR specialists. And we were open to worthy intentions and positive initiatives, not to specialist budgets.

But let’s get back to the questionnaire. It contained some objective criteria and some subjective ones. The result consisted of a score we communicated to our appraised colleagues in a feedback discussion, and then, depending on the score, their monthly salary would increase.

Lessons learned? 

1. It took much longer to do the evaluation than we originally expected. We drafted the questionnaire, distributed it, and then waited for it to be filled in. Post evaluation discussions followed. All in all, this meant tens, if not hundreds of hours.

2. All members of the team had a near maximum score. Their coordinators were also the ones who evaluated them, and each coordinator awarded points to his or her team as ?objectively” as possible.

3. As a consequence, all salaries were increased.

4. After a short moment of frenzy and joy, things went back to normal. The behaviours we wanted to change for the better (divergent from the standard) returned.

We continued this process into the next year. We just tried to refine it. We added the auto-evaluation to the evaluation process. We included managers from other departments, and coordinating partners from other departments. We tried to keep both our bias and the more formal aspects such as the dress code, in check. The results were largely the same as in the previous year, to which there was the added tension between evaluators on the same level, plus the natural expectation of a salary increase and the hundreds of hours spent doing the evaluation process.

The next years were also ones in which we experimented. This time with the help of a trainer. We simplified the process as much as possible and eliminated some of the evaluation criteria. The procedure itself remained unchanged. The results were the same. There was a relaxation effect though, of almost a year, until the evaluation period approached. With the knowledge of what happens next, everyone was stressing again.

This situation went on until about 4 years ago when under the influence of what I would call a more modern approach, we decided to do a 360 degrees evaluation. In hindsight, this resembled mostly to an over-commitment to a desire to build the perfect working environment.

The idea behind the 360 degrees evaluation is that everyone evaluates everyone. It’s not a bad idea, in principle. It can show a mirror of each of us in the organisation. As said, it can be a useful tool, in principle. This is because, in theory, under the protection of anonymity, people tend to say things as they are. Of course, there is a big difference between theory and practice. Why? Because, if you don’t carefully control the questions, if you leave more room to individual perceptions versus objective criteria, what you’re going to get is a jumble of opinions. Opinions either about people you interacted very little with or about activities in the organisation you have no competence for, or look to get payback form some imaginary or real slight of your colleagues’.

At the time we had no idea of the Pandora box we had opened through our wish to create a “perfect” working environment.

To the conclusions to the previous evaluations, we added a moment of negative low vibration because we don’t all have the strength to get past the opinions of others about us. I remember a colleague who, several months after the evaluation, was still affected because someone had described her as “a bit lazy” in her evaluation. Her spirit was down because of this description, up to the point where she couldn’t focus on her daily routine. There were others like her.

Changing the energy of this many people, restoring the team’s good vibration, is an extremely high effort. It all starts with one wrong word a colleague says, with one singular opinion. That raise or bonus won’t change much in this situation. The truth of the evaluation, even if it’s just one opinion, doesn’t even matter, just its effect.

As such, we added tens, hundreds of hours to restore the low morale, a loss in efficiency, and a lack of focus on what was really important in an organisation.

We realized then that our organisation is not perfect. The evaluation criteria forced an unnatural standardization of different typologies of people, with different competencies, different jobs, different states of mind, different types of intelligence, and different perceptions. So we decided to approach evaluations from a different perspective.

We have no more annual evaluations. What we do have are regular discussions to adjust expectations, without a prearranged frequency. If you have something to say, say it. We don’t need a formal setting to do this. A year doesn’t have to pass to bring something up, irrespective of the vertical or horizontal axis we are on in an organisation.

Discussions are on a personal, individual basis. We also introduced two concepts: “my time with you” and “evolution”. The first one initiated a series of talks where each month, each person in the firm meets with each colleague over coffee. There aren’t so many of us, so that’s logistically possible. The concept of “evolution” introduced hierarchical discussions on individual growth aimed at two topics: development in the organization and for the organization and personal development. It’s about how and if our organization can contribute to your personal growth and about how, and if, you can contribute to our evolution as a team.

If you want feedback, ask for it. If you want to give feedback to another colleague, ask permission to do so. Otherwise, discussions are about processes, concrete actions, and results.

So far, it seems to work.

I would conclude though, for those who continue to do “classical” evaluations:

1. Think about how important is the annual evaluation for your organisation. What is the problem it resolves? Is there another way to solve it? Do the members of the team know the minimal standards they need to meet to undergo evaluation? What about performance standards? Are the behaviours and values clearly communicated?

2. If you reached the conclusion that you have to do a performance evaluation, engage the services of professionals, even if you have an in-house HR department. If you do opt for them, do not intervene. They know what they have to do!

3. Share the purpose of the evaluation in good time, as well as its results, once completed.

4. Do not wait for the next year to follow-up and implement the measures the specialists provide in the evaluation report. No exceptions.

5. If you choose not to hire external professionals for the evaluation process, keep in mind that the questions should take into account that not all those evaluated are the same, as not all evaluators are the same.

6. Make a fair assessment of the necessary resources and of the effect the evaluation could have on the organisation. 

The Romanian version of this article can be found here.