Reimagining Performance Reviews: Fair, Thoughtful, and Impactful

If you’re like many others, the end of the calendar year is often performance review time. This can be a stressful time for managers and individual contributors alike. I don’t know about you, but I have a like-dislike relationship with performance reviews. If I’m being honest, in the entirety of my professional career, I’ve not experienced a performance review process that I like or that is very helpful. Have you?

For most, the (dreaded?) self-review brings up questions about what we should include, how honest we should be, and how much to write. Then the manager review brings up questions for the manager about what to write, how honest to be, and how much to include. And on the flip side of that, the employee receiving their manager’s review may have anxiety, fear, stress, apprehension, excitement, and insert any other emotion(s) here.

I have thought a lot about my aversion to performance reviews over the years and about how they could be better (at least for me and hopefully for others too). I read an article in Fast Company in 2013 that actually got me excited. It was about the performance reviews Paul English, the co-founder of Kayak, gives. There’s no fancy tool or platform. There’s no lengthy form. There are just 5 words on a random piece of paper. Paul takes the person out to lunch, gives them the paper, and they talk about it. He lets the person know that this feedback is simply Paul’s opinion, and that the person can take or leave the feedback. Simple, straightforward, impactful. This article made me think about how the performance review process could change and be more meaningful, honest, and transformational.

I believe part of my aversion starts with the goal-setting process. I recall setting goals in one role I had for many years. At my company, we had to set around 5 goals and ensure they were SMART - specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound. So, we set our goals and never looked at them again until review time. The goals were not always tied to our actual work, and we never talked about them or adjusted them during the review period. When it came time to write self reviews and manager reviews, it was a scramble to base the review on those goals that weren’t aligned to our actual work. Ugh.

At another company, we did quarterly reviews and were constantly adjusting goals so they were more aligned to our work, but our work changed throughout the quarterly review periods, so it became really difficult to keep track and adjust goals since work changed so quickly. That was part of why we did quarterly reviews. When that became too much, we went to biannual reviews. Those didn’t improve because things still were constantly changing.

I’m sure you get the idea. The performance management and review process is messy and not helpful or motivating. I see articles frequently exploring how reviews are riddled with bias, are demotivating for employees, and aren’t effective.

So what could be (more) effective for performance reviews?

1. Regular, ongoing, actionable feedback - both positive and constructive. I’ve experienced too many managers who NEVER give any type of feedback. EVER. So everything in the performance conversation is a surprise. (Hint: this isn’t good). We never want to blindside anyone in a performance review conversation. If something is problematic, as managers, we owe it to the person (and to ourselves and team), to address it in a very timely fashion. Not 6 months later in a performance review.
2. Thoughtful and considered evaluation - many people fall for recency bias where they base an evaluation on only what’s happened recently, not for the whole review period. I believe taking notes (written or digital; on paper, in a tool, or in an online document) during 1:1s provides the information needed to fairly and in a balanced way consider a person’s performance for the entire period. Not just what they did in the last month.
3. Consider peer feedback - hearing from a person’s peers about their performance can lend additional insights. They should not, however, be the only insights used to write a performance review.?
4. Be open to adjusting the review based on the conversation. Let’s be real - sometimes we get it wrong. Our interpretation is off. We don’t have all of the information. Be open to changing the review if, during the conversation, it appears that your evaluation is off in some way. I’ve done this a few times for my direct reports when I’ve gotten it wrong.
5. Don’t focus solely on past performance and trying to correct that (newsflash - you can’t change what happened in the past). I believe performance reviews should have a component of past performance, AND they should focus on how the person can improve going forward. What will make them more effective? What should they double down on? Are there any skills that will help them be better in their roles?
6. If there are ratings, ALL of them should be valid. I’ve heard that some companies have, let’s say a 5-point rating scale, but that managers aren’t allowed to give out 5s. Why not? If there is a rating scale, any of them should be game.
7. Level-set. Think about what performance deserves a 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 (or whatever the scale is). What does each rating mean? If multiple people get a particular rating, is that consistent? Maybe, as a manager, look at all of the reviews and ratings you’ve given and think about if another manager wrote the review and rated the person, would they be aligned with you? Let’s ensure there is equity in how employees are evaluated.
8. Demystify the process. Let employees know about the full performance review process. If calibration conversations are used, let people know how they work. Let them know what ratings mean and how they may be tied to compensation or bonuses or promotion opportunities. Let people in on the process.

The bottom line: I believe performance reviews and goal setting should be linked and tied to the actual work being done. I believe performance reviews should be open and honest and written and delivered in a thoughtful and helpful way. I believe that there should be fairness and equity in the process. And I believe they exist to help employees learn about expectations, their performance to expectation, and how they can improve. They are a tool to help, not scare, stress, or punish.

?? What is your company’s performance process like? What do you like about it (or dislike about it)? What would your dream/ideal process be? Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

#PerformanceReviews #LeadershipDevelopment #FeedbackCulture #WorkplaceInnovation #EmployeeEngagement

Photo: Pablo Zuchero ~ unsplash.com