Action Insight Inc

Two weeks ago as she and her boss had passed in the hall, he mentioned the need to meet for her annual performance review. A week later he remembered that they needed to meet, and brought up the subject again.

The day came, and time was not available to meet. Just before lunch, Susan got a phone call from her son’s school, he had fallen and needed medical attention. She checked out and went to care for her son. That afternoon, a report deadline was missed.

Can you guess what the topic of her performance review the next Monday morning was?

Déjà vu? If you have had, or given, a performance review in your career, you probably have stories to tell. Why are performance reviews so disliked by managers and employees alike?

Performance appraisals are administered by human beings, most of whom are not experts in giving and receiving feedback. Here are some of the basic reasons the traditional approach to the performance appraisal is such a hot potato:

1. The fundamental premise. Like it or not, the traditional performance appraisal systems most companies use are based on the work of behavioral scientists during the first half of this century, conducting tests on rats, dogs, and pigeons. Unlike these animals, people think, develop their own logic, have their own views of life, and in reality, there is no comparison.

2. One size fits all. Organizations that use one or two forms of pre established performance criteria, are missing the boat. Fundamentally, the skills people use in the myriad of jobs they perform are different. When a company attempts to force this fit, the firm looses credibility with the manager and the employee.

3. The rating system. Inaccurate performance ratings are often given in order to maintain a positive work group climate, or to avoid negative outcomes for their employees. An audit of one Fortune 500 company demonstrated that over 80% of the reviews rated the employees as above average performers. Could the company have that many high performers?

    In addition, traditional rating scales are one dimensional. Often called "Likert Scales," these rating scales are used to lump the results team members get and the actions they take getting those results. Why is it important to break ratings down into these two categories? Have you ever seen a manager who could get the product out the door, but was so abusive that there was a lot of walking wounded, resulting in high turnover, poor morale, or some other consequence? Are those not two dimensions of performance?

4. Supervisor as Judge and Jury. We ask our managers and supervisors to act as judge and jury. What’s wrong with that? People hate to be judged. How often have you seen people actually take constructive criticism and make a significant change in their behavior? Resistance is natural, compliance is a façade, subjectivity, is the issue.

    The second issue with the supervisor being judge and jury is that ratings are often inflated to prevent morale problems and relationship issues. If the result is inaccurate, why continue to do it?

5. They are a waste of time. Most managers, when forced to complete performance appraisals, will say, done for the year - another waste of time. Since the review was probably inaccurate, took a lot of time to develop, deliver, and caused a lot of stress, why bother?

Moral: A paradigm shift is required in the approach to performance management. Providing a new methodology, some simple tools, and training, are essential.