Why many organizations manage staff performance poorly?

Managers would drop the process entirely if they didn’t have to make decisions about development needs, promotions, pay rises, terminations, transfers, and admission to training programs. U.K.-based surveys have exposed widespread dissatisfaction with such systems, revealing that between 68 and 80 per cent of organizations were unhappy with them.

Why then do so many managers and their staff have reservations about the capacity of Performance Management systems to deliver the goods? In this regard we can identify ‘seven deadly defects’ commonly associated with the process.

1.???????Managerial Hostility- The reality is that senior staff and line managers who are hostile to their performance management and appraisal system do not fully understand or appreciate its purpose, and as a result don’t co-operate in its proper implementation. If top management are not committed to the system and process, it is hard to see how their line managers would be. In fact, the evidence suggests that managers often have differing interpretations of such H.R. policies, as they are frequently ill-defined and the managers themselves are inadequately prepared for their implementation. In practice then it is hardly surprising that Carroll and Schneier’s research found that performance appraisals rank as the most disliked managerial activity.

2.???????Staff Hostility- Second only to top management in ensuring the operation of a successful system is the support of the staff and, where appropriate, their representative association. This support is vital to both the initial introduction of a successful system and for its maintenance as an acceptable and useful going concern. Ideally staff should view the system as ‘theirs’; as a mechanism that is likely to benefit them and requires their active co-operation. However, according to Armstrong and Baron’s study, appraisals are often ‘disliked by employees and employers alike’. In the context of staff this is hardly surprising given that, as Price notes, some managers will be ‘blunt and brutal’ in their approach and may not produce any improvement in the employee’s behavior, but prompt ‘sullen resentment and a reduction in quality of performance’.

This perspective is reinforced by Marchington and Wilkinson, who point out that employees who are disaffected or who have low levels of trust in their managers will not want to participate in the process. Those who feel themselves to be ‘continuously observed’ will feel that ‘trust’ is a hollow term. Related to this is the finding from the U.K. Investors in People survey that ‘most staff don’t trust their bosses’

3.???????Conflicting And Short-Term Objectives- There is a body of evidence which confirms that performance management encounters difficulties when used to address several objectives. For example, this defect features in the IRs (2021) survey of such systems, which concluded that ‘appraisal’ is a victim of its own expectations, in that it is expected to deliver in too many areas. This throws up the assessor\judge versus coach\counsellor role dilemma experienced by many line managers obliged to address employee development and reward agendas at the periodic review meetings. The conflict in such scenarios arises from the fact that when used for reward related decisions (e.g., pay, promotion) whatever developmental impetus it is intended to have been threatened. Accordingly, the reviewer\manager is expected to align the (practically incompatible) judge and counsellor roles at one and the same meeting. In these circumstances the job holder or interviewee is less likely to undertake a comprehensive self-assessment and may deny shortcomings in their performance, blame others or other factors, and\or insist that the shortcoming is of no significance- if the alleged failing threatens to affect pay increase or promotion decisions. Many reviewers will be reluctant to jeopardize their working relationship with a team member. Hence, it’s little surprise that Jawahar and Williams (in their review of 22 studies of this process – found that ratings\scores (awarded by managers to their staff under such systems) for administrative purposes (e.g., pay and promotion) were significantly higher than those obtained for research or employee development purposes.

4.???????Inadequate Interpersonal and Interviewing Skills- Problems associated with low-level interpersonal skills human judgement and subjectivity are inherent to the performance management process and have long been associated with problematic appraisals. concluded that appraisees often see their appraisal meeting as an occasion when they must accept whatever their appraiser says and then it takes a long time to get over the experience. large scale survey / focus group research project in the U.S., where 79 per cent of respondents adjudged ‘poor working relationships’ to contribute to the failure of their appraisal system, whilst 67 per cent of respondents adjudged ‘the (related) lack of on-going feedback’ to be a contributory factor. concur that across all cultures interpersonal relationships play a key role in the performance management process. In respect of the periodic performance review and developmental meeting, the key question is: was the interviewee more appropriately motivated when leaving the meeting? If the answer is ‘Yes’, then it’s a win: win process. However, if the answer is ‘No’ it is hard to expect improved performance or real development on the interviewee’s part. As a result, all parties, employee, manager, team\work group, and the organization, lose out.

5.???????Lack of Interview Follow Up- Reactions to the performance management system will be significantly influenced by whether agreements made during the periodic review meeting(s) materialize.

6.???????Failure to Evaluate or Review the System- Failure to monitor or review the performance management system and to make the necessary improvements is common. Complacency and comfort in a ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it around here’ attitude may well prove to be both the systems and the organization’s undoing. Many organizations exist in an environment of rapid change, where the systems that were adequate yesterday no longer serve their original purposes(s)

7.???????Complex System\Paperwork- Most managers already feel flooded with paperwork, and many resent the further form filling associated with their performance management system. As Torrington et al. scathingly conclude, the forms ‘are not living documents’, and are generally stored in the archives of the H.R. department, as the issue of performance is neglected until the next round of performance review meetings. Redman and Wilkinson (2009) also allude to this tendency to produce overly bureaucratic systems, requiring participants to fill in large quantities of paperwork, albeit to little practical effect. The stark reality is that in many establishments the forms deployed for performance management purposes represent near ‘death-traps’ to the all-important manager-employee relationship. That is, they are so extensive that parties feel obliged to record all details of the working relationship, enabling the paperwork to resemble more of a ‘lawyer’s paradise’ than a work-in-progress summary of the key features of an on-going and improving work relationship.