TURNING THE TABLES ON APPRAISALS?
Most people will have experienced some sort of performance review/appraisal in their workplace. This should be a beneficial experience for the appraisee and appraiser. Common practice is to be appraised by someone of a more senior grade/rank/experience, which generally makes sense. It should be an opportunity for the employee to reflect on their role and how they feel they are fulfilling this as well as how they are progressing. It should also be concerned with what their developmental needs are and how their employer can help them achieve these. And it is also a time when the appraiser gives constructive feedback, encouragement and support.
Ideally the review is scheduled in advance and an appropriate amount of protected time is allocated. To get the most out of the process, the appraisee should have given some thought and consideration to key aspects of their role and day to day working. They should also have noted what , if anything, they are more or less satisfied with about their job, what might improve the situation and what development /learning needs they have.
The focus for these meetings should be the appraisee, not the appraiser. This is predominantly the appraisees agenda. At the end of the meeting both parties should agree on next steps with the appraisee accountable for planning eg: training/ support/work pattern changes within a time frame and the appraisee committing to fulfilling agreed goals.
This should always be a mutually open, honest, respectful two-way discussion in a safe, non-threatening environment.
BUT WHAT IF THE APPRAISER IS A BULLY?
OR IF THE APPRAISER IS NOT TRUSTED?
At a UK Hospice where I worked for almost 20yrs, there were clearly written procedures and policies about performance reviews or I.P.R's (Individual Performance Reviews). In the early days I, like many employees, were wary, seeing these annual meetings with the line manager as akin to being called to the Headteacher's office. I worked in various departments with a variety of nurse managers, each with a different style and approach to IPR's. There were those who `ruled' by intimidation and fear, so the IPR was full of anxiety and a desire to get out as soon as possible, making them a pointless exercise for all concerned. Others took time, gave me time, made the experience positive, encouraging and even enjoyable and inspiring.
I had 19 appraisals in my time there. I still have the paperwork which was always signed off by Matron with a comment, similar to a school report. I can see how my confidence and skills improved over the years and am proud that a regular comment was that I always worked with commitment as a team player and advocate for patients. I was told during the allocated 20 minutes, that educational and professional development needs would not be discussed and that as I was also self- employed, I would now be expected fund my own professional development, including that needed for my Hospice role. I should have seen the writing on the wall. But instead I made allowances as always because I loved my job.
Two months after my final appraisal, I raised a health and safety concern. Suddenly I was told my my manager, that I was no longer fulfilling my role. How quickly my managers stopped being impressed by my commitment and advocacy! In the subsequent 6 months of bullying, intimidation and blocking from several managers , Matron and CEO, I became (to the organisation) persona non grata with `an axe to grind.'
I wonder what comments they would have made on my appraisal had in taken place at this time instead of 2 months earlier.
In a workplace as toxic as this, there is really very little point in having employee appraisals/work reviews, since people do not feel able to have those honest and open discussions with managers that they do not fully trust
How can we truly TRUST our managers and leaders if they are not subjected to the same scrutiny and accountability as those they lead?
Of course, the Hospice that I worked for has a system whereby managers should have had a similar appraisal by someone superior to them. I have no idea whether this took place, because in our apparent `open communication' at the hospice, none of this was ever discussed. I suspect that if they did take place, the appraisals were equally pointless because intimidation and lack of trust underscored every level of leadership there. And ultimately, they simply scratched each others backs and nurtured toxicity.
IN 2008, Stephen Kaufman wrote an insightful article about how he perfunctory his appraisal was by the Chair of the Board of Arrow Electronics, where he was CEO. In contrast to the way he appraised his own team using a multifaceted approach, the Chair simply looked at the company's performance numbers , thanked him and left, not even sitting down to talk. Subsequently a system is now in place where other directors and managers review the CEO's performance in the work environment: at meetings, events, with other employees, reporting back their findings and setting out goals for moving forward.
He suggests that if a CEO can accept this kind of scrutiny:
` put aside his ego and acknowledge that he’s not perfect, and is open to receiving counsel.' Then that person will be an effective and trusted leader.
领英推荐
` At the end of the day, my experience has taught me that it’s when CEOs think they no longer need real, credible feedback that they get into trouble.'(Kaufman.)
I would suggest that this applies to all in leadership positions within a company. They should not simply be `appraised' by 1 person of a higher rank, but by a team which includes people they are leading. This way the performance review is more nuanced and informed, reflecting how they work day to day with their team and other workplace colleagues as well as considering their role and competencies.
82% of people in a survey by Trinet USA ,said they would leave a job due to a bad manager.
Employee feedback should matter to every manager
This interesting article: How to let employees evaluate their Managers, published by Trinet, 2022, illustrates how honest feedback from employees can better enable managers to become better, more effective, more trusted leaders. It suggests that organisations should help managers to value employee input within safe feedback protocols , of course.
A simple way is to evaluate performance using a 1-5 scale. (1= poor. 5= effective), using categories such as: reliability, effectiveness, support, fairness, loyalty, advocacy, people skills, accountability and communication.
Key questions such as, do they admit their mistakes? Do they acknowledge other people's work and efforts? Do they have integrity? Do you trust them?
ANONYMOUS FEEDBACK
In my former workplace anonymous surveys were an attempt to get employee feedback, though never specifically about managers or CEO. The problem was (and possibly still is), that most employees did not trust management. Surveys were online, and although we were not asked for names, the question format and content was such that it could be used to identify specific computers/work desks and specific teams. As a result people did not answer honestly: they feared repercussions.
However feedback on leadership is gathered, it must be shared with the work force and it must be acted upon.
My former employer did circulate the results of the Survey Monkey anonymised forms to staff. But statistical summaries and fancy charts were used to gloss over negative feedback which was generally ignored.
If even 2 people in a workplace say they are dissatisfied or unhappy, this should be addressed. Surely employers want all employees to feel happy valued and fulfilled ?
Ultimately a good manager leads by example and engenders an atmosphere of care and support.
A manager should ensure that every team member has all of the resources they need to do the job effectively and efficiently. It is incumbent on a manager to praise people who deserve it, offer constructive criticism in private as needed, and address any complaint privately as soon as possible.
A great boss is one who strives to improve themselves to become a better leader. And this will only happen if they listen to and act on feedback from those they are leading.
Without scrutiny and evaluation of leaders in an organisation you are nurturing a toxic workplace. The NHS and non government healthcare providers need to reverse the trend of bullying and cover up in their organisations.
Ref: Evaluating the CEO by. Stephen P. Kaufman. (2008. Harvard Business Review.)