Workforce Blogs
Home
Complete archive of features and news articles, sample policies and procedures, assessments, and surveys.
Network and exchange ideas with other members in the forums or ask an expert in one of the hosted forums.
Access vendor directories, product case studies and showcases.
Read Best in Shows, view our conference calendar, read commentaries and take our news poll.
The Hot List
Blogs
Topic Channels
Comp, Benefits, Rewards
HR Management
Legal Insight
Recruiting and Staffing
Software and Technology
Training and Development
= Member Only
Workforce HR Jobs
Find A Job
Post A Job



Subscribe Now
Workforce Magazine
Subscriber Help
























= Member Only


Blog: The Business of Management
 

January 15th, 2009

Why I Hate Performance Reviews

As a veteran manager, I have long since gulped the Kool-Aid and accepted the proposition that if you want a leadership role, you must be willing to handle all sorts of stuff you would rather not deal with.

And there is one management task that I hate over all others, one that I never seem to be able to avoid or get away from no matter how hard I try. In fact, I’m involved in it right now, and just like as in past years, I’ll struggle to get through it and wonder, “Is there really any great benefit to this?”

Yes, the annual performance review drives me crazy.

It’s not that I don’t see the value in evaluating workers. I do. It is terribly important to give the people who work for you regular, actionable feedback on what they are doing and how they might better help the organization.

I get all of that, but what I hate isn’t the actual discussion with the employee, but rather the process you must go through to get to that stage—the inflexible forms, the manual process and the lack of a good follow-up system that makes the evaluation truly meaningful. Yes, there are great automated talent systems out there that make this a lot easier and more meaningful process (I’ve seen sharp-looking software from such companies as Taleo and Authoria), but these systems still have not gained mainstream acceptance, at least not in the places that I have worked at.

As a manager, I’ve come to accept the fact that you can’t blow off performance reviews no matter how manual or difficult the process can be. It’s just something you have to grit your teeth and do. After all, in many organizations, the evaluation process is a central element in giving out raises, right?

Well, it’s not if you work in the city of Denver. According to a story this week in The Denver Post, “Nearly one in five city of Denver employees didn’t receive a timely performance evaluation in 2008 but got pay raises anyway.”

According to the newspaper, the city’s compensation system “mandates that employees who do not get an evaluation from their supervisor be marked as ‘successful’ and given a merit pay raise. But a complicated evaluation process, and an admitted lack of attention to a lingering issue, led to pay increases for about 1,500 of about 8,600 eligible without a formal evaluation.”

This isn’t a new problem for Colorado’s largest city. Denver Councilman Chris Nevitt said during a City Council committee meeting that some employees have told him they haven’t received an evaluation for three years. “We don’t know if those people stunk or if they’re doing a great job,” he said.

Denver “hopes to automate the evaluation system by 2010 and to streamline the evaluations,” according to the executive director of the city’s Career Service Authority. And for good reason. The lack of a system is costing the city a lot of money in raises that are going to employees who don’t deserve it.

Of those Denver city workers who did receive timely evaluations last year, 54 received a rating of “needs improvement,” 3,954 received a “successful” rating and 3,140 received an “exceptional” rating, according to the newspaper. In other words, if you apply those percentages to the 1,500 city workers who didn’t get a review, more than 800 public workers got a raise despite the fact that their performance probably needed improvement.

If the Denver experience isn’t a perfect example of why every single organization needs strong performance reviews, I don’t know what is. It should be a wake-up call for managers who slack off on employee evaluations and a perfect sales pitch for all those HR software vendors who have technology that would make the process easier.

But given the economy, I just don’t see a lot of companies making big investments in systems like this right now, no matter how valuable they might be. That’s a pity, because I know there are a lot of managers out there like me. We’re spending way too much time on an antiquated process that offers too little regular feedback to help workers improve and, ultimately, do a better job.

Get my latest blog updates and workforce management news by following me on Twitter.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/2009/01/15/why-i-hate-performance-reviews/trackback/



Comments

i totally agree with all your points except that i’d argue that this issue for the City of Denver can’t and won’t be resolved through better systems.
this is a case where either collective bargaining agreements or civil service rules mandated that those peeps receive automatic increases. a system to remind a manager or automate the process wouldn’t have helped because there’s something fundamentally wrong with the rules and how business is done with the City of Denver. the concept of pay for performance is missing. there’s no incentive to get the reviews done, no incentive to be a good manager, so why do it? the public sector is notorious for bad management, bad HR folks and weak people programs and systems. i know first hand from doing my time in HR for two different public sector entities… just a sad, sad situation. your tax dollars hard at work… sorta.

I agree with you overall on the amount of work that most performance management systems take, versus their benefit. One thing I’ve learned in management is that everyone hates the performance review process, regardless of which side of the desk you are on. I do have to take issue with your math. According to the statistics I read in your article, approximately 7.5 % of reviewed employees are rated less that “successful”, so assuming that the same percentage would apply to those not reviewed, there are only 11 people that got raises that otherwise might not, not the 800 as you claim.

John, you make several excellent points about why performance reviews are painful — especially the process. But you’re also right that the need for feedback is critical. I believe, however, annual feedback is second only to no feedback as the worst approach. Employees (regardless of generation) need constant feedback on their efforts and appreciation for a job well done.
I believe the use of ongoing, frequent and timely recognition as the most effective means of performance management. When deployed according to best practice so a strategic employee recognition program is available as a peer-to-peer option as well as manager-to-employee, recognition becomes a positive and ongoing form of 360 degree performance assessments in which anyone in the organization can comment on the contributions and effectiveness of their teammates. These “recognition assessments” and kudos can then be used during the annual performance review as an additional data point on the strengths (John has been recognized repeatedly for innovation) and even weaknesses (but John has been recognized only once for teamwork) as potential areas of improvement.
This presents a much more rounded view of an employee’s contributions that managers may not even be directly aware of.
I blog extensively on this concept of recognition and performance management here: http://globoforce.blogspot.com/search/label/performance%20management

Yes John it is the mechanics of the review process that can sabotage the entire endeavor. The forms are important, the language must be explicit, but it is the conversation that develops the working relationship of trust and provides the forum for growth. In our current economy both the conversation and documentation are important.


Post a comment

This is a captcha-picture. It is used to prevent mass-access by robots. (see: www.captcha.net)

You must read and type the 5 chars within 0..9 and A..F, and submit the form.

  

Please, generate a





Blog Index







Recent Posts

Blog Archives

Categories



Recent Comments

Other Workforce Blogs

Blog Roll







Copyright © 1995-2007 Crain Communications Inc.
All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement