It's Time To Put Performance Reviews On Notice

Dear Lisa, Thank you for posting such a thought-provoking article. Here is my perspective for you: 1. Simplification is best achieved at the human level (personal relationship with your Manager) and not through technological innovation - however advanced any technology, each employee will feel, without exception, that it is impersonal and detached from their unique circumstances, aspirations and outlook; 2. Qualitative (ie., Open-ended free verbal text discussions between the team member and manager) methods are far more profound than quantitative (notwithstanding that some companies, as you report, are being laudably innovative in terms of frequency or event-driven timing of structured feedback which is "specific" rather than "general" - the latter typically dismissed as token politically correct platitudes. What do I mean by Qualitative? I mean a review that is completely focused on the employee (employee-centric) rather than on the expectations of the manager (employer-centric), namely: 1. Ask the employee to describe the job that he or she is supposed to be doing? 2. Ask the employee to outline what they see as their strengths (often very different to how colleagues and managers see their strengths)? 3. Ask the employee to articulate what they see as their weaknesses? (In Britain, employees tend to be too self-critical here whereas, in my experience, this text field is left 'blank' by US employees); 4. Ask the employee if they see anything uncertain or ambiguous about their current role? 5. Ask the employee if they would like the employer to do anything differently in the future? 6. Ask the employee about what training they believe that they need in order to be successful? 7. Ask the employee about what goals they would like to set for themselves over the next 6-12 months? To this fairly traditionalist thinking, I would add: 8." If you were in charge of this business or organisation, what would you do differently?" I believe 'Continuous' feedback can be helpful as long as it is 'specific' and emphasises the positives before exploring 'areas for development'. Quarterly is the right frequency for, ironically, both unstructured and process-centric work activities. Event-Driven feedback is most useful at the conclusion of the 'Event' (eg., Project). However, most staff do not work on a Project-basis...they work on a variety of core (essential) and non-core processes and face the daily challenge of dividing their time between 'proactive' tasks and 'reactive' (responding to inbound requests - both of a core and non-core nature) activities through the working day. Modern Email Communication systems have become the reactive killer of proactive management time allocation ie., to the detriment of engaging and motivating teams, developing a continuous improvement culture and planning beyond the current Quarter’s financial goals. In my view, 'Check-Ins'' are best conducted quarterly over an informal lunch where the Manager is doing his or her best to encourage the team member to be open about 'likes' and 'dislikes'. And the Manager is asking for feedback about his or her strengths and weaknesses (a completely alien concept in every organisation). I didn’t find any mention in your article, nor that of other HR commentators, on the case for ‘360 degree’ appraisals eg., feedback from the employee’s (whether senior, mid-level or entry-level) direct reports, peers and senior management ie., below, at the same level and above. No company has the courage to adopt this model but I believe that it could help counter the hierarchical sociopathic coterie-nurturing stasis of today's flailing Fortune 500 enterprises…to say nothing of government departments (of which I will say nothing). Organisations need to become more heterogeneous (diverse, fluid and adaptable) rather than homogenous (closed, trapped by ‘Group-Think’) in order to drive open innovation and collaboration for competitive advantage. Goals are only useful if set by each employee (bottom up) rather than by the management (top-down). Top down goal-setting for team members must surely rank among the most demotivating and disempowering aspects of modern corporate life and can be safely tarred with the same workplace cultural landmine brush as the 'CC: email field' and 'Reporting for the sake of reporting'. So, in my view, there is no point in creating an App for smart tracking of 'Goal Progress’. The real question is 'Who sets the goals?'. Never mind if goals are set by your Manager or by nifty AI technology, goals (whether they be ‘stretch’ or some other baloney) will be consigned to the same disempowering wilderness dustbin if employees never owned them in the first place. What is really needed for performance improvement is a complete overhaul of the 'sociopathic' environment of the modern large enterprise. To that end, here's my hypothesis - https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/what-kind-corporate-culture-would-you-like-see-mark-wiggins/ You mention that more precision/frequency in the ratings system (Top down rather than bottom up) can aid better outcomes with 'compensation reviews' In my view, smart companies completely separate the personal development appraisal process from the compensation review one: otherwise the latter casts a poisonous cloud on the former…to the detriment of both the employee's development potential as well as the employer's ability to fully exploit (apologies in advance to any Marxists reading this) the employee's potential…so a loss/loss rather the win/win so much trump(eted) in business arenas. I hope you find this perspective to be useful. Thanks. Best Regards, Mark

So refreshing to hear that, Lisa. Performance evals are unproductive and a no longer applicable process. I actually believe they never worked. Thanks for sharing.