Time to Ditch the Dreaded Annual Appraisal

Svenja Spranger’s article, 19th May (Key to success of annual performance reviews: giving and receiving feedback) certainly gives food for thought. It covers the dreaded annual performance reviews preferred by so many employers. I say ‘dreaded’, because that’s how both parties often feel about it. I entirely agree that the manager has to give and the employee has to receive feedback. What is a mystery to me, however, is why the appraisal has to be annual and why it shouldn’t be mutual?

Typical scenario: the annual appraisal is approaching. The employee gets nervous – how they’re going to be assessed? What have they done right? Or wrong? Where do they still need to improve?

In the absence of ongoing appraisal in the form of an informal ‘quick word’, a public appreciation of effort, words of advice and encouragement here and there, it’s like going into an exam. Many employees are on the defensive, scared of the whole process.

Many managers, on the other hand, do not undertake appraisals with a great deal of enthusiasm – and, very often, with even less honesty. Many don’t have a clue how to raise issues, how to tell an employee that they are not doing well in this or that respect. They don’t know how to motivate, how to inspire, how to help the employee leave feeling uplifted not dejected. 

And that’s because, either they haven’t been trained or they are simply not a good boss and their human side departed when they became managers.

The worst thing about annual appraisals is how, so often, managers fail to tackle serious issues – they don’t want to deal with something controversial.

Let me give you an example. Many years ago, when I was a partner in a law firm in London dealing with employment law, I was asked to deal with sex and race discrimination claims brought by an associate against the firm.

She had not been given the promotion that she thought she deserved whereas a white, male associate had.

In her eyes, she had performed perfectly satisfactorily. In her eyes, there was no difference between her and the guy except that she was female and from an ethnic minority. So, as she put it, the facts spoke for themselves.

According to her appraisal reports, which contained no criticism of her performance, she was right. According to her manager, she wasn’t. True, he told me, she was an excellent associate in terms of doing what she was asked to do. She was efficient, knew her law and procedure and could be relied on to get things done.

But she had got as far as she was going to go.

What she lacked (and the guy had in abundance) was the sort of outgoing personality and enhanced communication skills which meant that he got on extremely well with clients. Moreover, he was excellent at strategy, tactics, advocacy and negotiation skills. He brought work in; he spoke at events. She wasn't good at any of this.

All this went into his appraisals. None of the adverse stuff about the woman associate had ever made its way into her formal appraisal report. I mean, it’s not that it just wasn’t mentioned in the appraisal report - it was never raised in the first place.

Why? Isn't that one of the main points of an appraisal? Her manager ‘didn’t want to demotivate her’. Why not tell her and help her overcome those problems? Why not sit down with her and explain how she needed to improve in these areas if she were to have any hope of progressing further?

On paper she was an excellent associate. In her manager’s mind, she wasn’t, but she didn’t know it because he didn’t bother to tackle the issue head on and tell her. He didn’t coach, he didn’t mentor her. He didn’t help her on her way to the sort of improvement he required. He didn’t do his job.

And that put us on the back foot.

I knew exactly how I would use her appraisal reports to cross-examine her manager and make him squirm. In the privacy of his office that’s exactly what I did. I made him realise how it would all come across in the Employment Court. The manager was in high dudgeon when I told him that this was one case we had to settle. He was outraged that anyone should think that he had been guilty of sex or race discrimination.

And I don’t think that he had been, but he hadn’t given the associate what she was entitled to – a fair crack of the whip – to know where she stood, where she was lacking and how she could improve. What’s more, he totally failed in his duty as a manager and leader – namely to bring his juniors on; to notice where things are not right; to give feedback, encouragement and training – pass on his skills - throughout the year – not just ambush them in an end-of-year appraisal.

I was quite accustomed to training clients on writing and applying appraisal systems. Now I had to put my partners through the same training.

When I look back on that case, I feel sad that we didn’t treat that associate as we should. She deserved to know in what respects she was falling short; and the firm, as a whole, deserved to have her treated fairly.

She left, embittered and, perhaps, badmouthing her manager and the firm as a whole. As part of the settlement, we agreed a testimonial. We also agreed that if anyone sought a reference then they would be referred to the testimonial and no additional comment made.

Not long after, I received a telephone call from someone claiming to be a prospective employer. They wanted to know what wasn’t in the testimonial the associate had supplied. I simply told the enquirer that it was not our practice to respond to such enquiries by telephone and that, after all, she already had our testimonial. I am pretty sure it was the associate’s friend trying to catch us out.

This case represents a real lesson for managers. They need to be truthful with their staff. They need to help them. And they need to open themselves up to feedback from the employee. This should be an ongoing process – and definitely not limited to a once-a-year where the manager doesn’t do a proper job, fails to address issues, pulls punches and doesn’t face feedback about their own performance.

Surely, appraisal should be an ongoing process, shouldn’t it?

I fully accept that there should be some formality to appraisals because they have consequences, but should both sides wait for another year until they know what those consequences are? Has the employee improved sufficiently? Are there areas for improvement? Is the employee on the right career track? What further training might they need?

And what of the employee’s questions? All those seething resentments: Why are you never available when I need you? Why, when I knock on your door, do you shoo me away with an annoyed look on your face? Why, when you do delegate, do you leave it so late in the day – and, even then, why don’t you sit down with me, go through the file and give me some hints? 

Why wouldn’t you sign off for that training I needed that you promised me 12 months ago? And why, when I do something you are not happy with, do you criticize me front of my colleagues? 

If you think I lack negotiation, strategy and tactical skills, why am I only hearing this now? What can you do to help me? How can I help myself?

That so many appraisal meetings are entirely one way is ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason why they should be, and every reason why they shouldn’t be. Nor is there any reason they should be dreaded annual events.

I had six-monthly appraisals with my staff.

They could say whatever they wanted to say and I learned a lot from them about how I could improve as a manager and leader. We would each look back at the previous six months to see if we had each performed according to plan, and then agree targets for the forthcoming six months.

That might be that I would deliver some in-house training on business development – given that bringing business in becomes more and more important as an associate becomes more experienced. It might be that I would do some training on presentation skills since I expected my associates to help with our monthly seminars for clients and other contacts. It might be that I would promise to support external training on particular issues.

I saw it as part of my job to promise my associates that I would improve my management skills; that I would take appropriate action and that I would be accountable.

I certainly expected to be questioned on my abilities as a manager and I was more than happy to make promises where appropriate.

I expected the same from the employee I was appraising. Looking to the next six months we would discuss what needed to be done – did they need to mug up on a particular area of law; would it be helpful for the firm for them develop a new area. Were they interested in specialising in a particular area? Would they require books and training to do this?

And what could I do to help? I would expect promises from the employee and, six months hence, we would both look back at our respective promises and ask whether we had fulfilled them.

To guard against non-fulfilment, we would have a mid-appraisal informal meeting, three months after the last appraisal - a sort of, ‘how are we getting on?’ meeting. 

Had I started delegating more as promised? Was I delegating early enough? Was I giving enough guidance on how to deal with the case? Had the employee started work on getting up to speed on the new area of law? Had they found a course to attend? How were they doing enough marketing? Had they done any presentations yet? Where they undertaking networking or some other business development activity? Had they brought in work for another department?

That three months meeting was a great way to give ourselves a kick up the pants if necessary, to make sure that, three months hence, at the next six monthly appraisal, we could both put hands on hearts and say, yes we had done what we had promised six months earlier.

That’s what appraisal should be about. It’s time for many managers to treat appraisals seriously and to do their job properly throughout the year, treating their juniors as they deserve to be treated. 

It’s only fair, isn’t it?