WSJ: Time to get rid of Performance Reviews

[RedlightG20]

Yes, Everyone Really Does Hate Performance Reviews

Wall Street Journal

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/109343/yes-everyone-really-does-hate-performance-reviews?mod=career-worklife_balance

It's time to finally put the performance review out of its misery.

This corporate sham is one of the most insidious, most damaging, and yet most ubiquitous of corporate activities. Everybody does it, and almost everyone who's evaluated hates it. It's a pretentious, bogus practice that produces absolutely nothing that any thinking executive should call a corporate plus.

And yet few people do anything to kill it. Well, it's time they did.

Don't get me wrong: Reviewing performance is good; it should happen every day. But employees need evaluations they can believe, not the fraudulent ones they receive. They need evaluations that are dictated by need, not a date on the calendar. They need evaluations that make them strive to improve, not pretend they are perfect.

Who, Me?

Sadly, most managers are oblivious to the havoc they wreak with performance reviews. To some extent, they don't know any better: This is how performance reviews have been done, and this is how they will be done. Period.

Here's a simple experiment you can try. Ask yourself: How often have you heard a manager say, "Here is what I believe," followed by, "Now tell me, what do you think?" and actually mean it? Rarely, I bet.

The performance review is the primary tool for reinforcing this sorry state. Performance reviews instill feelings of being dominated. They send employees the message that the boss's opinion of their performance is the key determinant of pay, assignment, and career progress. And while that opinion pretends to be objective, it is no such thing. Think about it: If performance reviews are so objective, why is it that so many people get totally different ratings simply by switching bosses?

No, instead, the overriding message is that the boss's assessment is really about whether the boss "likes" you, whether he or she feels "comfortable" with you. None of this is good for the company unless the boss is some kind of savant genius who can read an employee's talents with laser accuracy -- and then understands what motivates the employee so perfectly that he or she can push just the right psychological buttons to get the employee to use those talents.

Unlikely and even more unlikely.

The Damage Done

At this point, you may be asking: So what? So what if you can't speak your mind to your boss? So what if the performance review forces the boss to focus on an employee's "weaknesses" (since most bosses are told they can't give everyone top grades)? What harm does it really do?

Sadly, it does enormous damage. Forget, for a minute, the damage it does on a personal level -- the way it makes work lives miserable, the way it leaves employees feeling depressed and anxious, the way having to show so much tolerance at work leaves them with too little tolerance at home. Just think about what it does on a corporate level, the enormous amount of time and energy it wastes, and the way it prevents companies from tapping the innovative, outside-the-box thinking that so many employees are capable of. If only, that is, they weren't so afraid.

A Better Way

The good news is that none of this is the way things have to be. The one-sided, boss-dominated performance review needs to be replaced by a straight-talking relationship where the focus is on results, not personality, and where the boss is held accountable for the success of the subordinate (instead of just using the performance review to blame the subordinate for any problems they're having).

In this new system, managers will stop labeling people "good guys" and "bad guys" -- or, in the sick parlance of performance reviews, outstanding performers, average performers, and poor performers to be put on notice. Instead, they'll get it straight that their job is to make everyone reporting to them good guys.

If you're a boss, and your subordinate isn't succeeding, something is broken here. Doing more of the same isn't going to cut it. It's now time for you to ask, "What do you need from me to deliver what we are both on the firing line to produce?" And just as important, it's time for you to listen to the answer.

Asking and listening. Imagine that. It's called a conversation, and it's a rarity in workplaces today. Only by hearing what the other person thinks, and putting that person's actions in the appropriate context, can you actually see what the person is saying and doing -- and how together you can get where the company needs you to go.

Performance reviews won't get you there, because that's just about the boss getting the subordinate to buy into his or her way of thinking. It's a mirror -- not a window into the other person. But take away the performance review and you might actually have straight talk.

Rotten Milk

Proponents of performance reviews say that the problem isn't the review itself, but poorly trained reviewers. Sorry, but that doesn't fly: The performance review done exactly as intentioned is just as horribly flawed as the review done "poorly." You can't bake a great cake with rotten milk, no matter how skilled the chef. They also say you need performance reviews to protect against lawsuits by laid-off workers. Nonsense: Most performance reviews hurt a company's case because they aren't honest assessments of a worker's performance.

Also, before you start griping about how I don't understand Margaret, the woman in your department who wants to do as little work as possible, or how Tom is so distracted by his life outside the office that he can't get anything done at work, let me stop you and say: I know that not everybody deserves to stay in their jobs. Getting rid of performance reviews doesn't get rid of slackers. Not everybody will leap at the chance to get better and grow.

But everybody deserves the best shot managers can give them. And they can't get that shot with performance reviews.

[Destino]

Back when I was still working for someone else I loved performance reviews. I'm a natural talker and used them to get a raise or a recommendation for a promotion.

[Peeping Wizard]

But if they scrapped performance reviews, what would Human Resources do for 3/4 of the year?

[Destino]

But if they scrapped performance reviews, what would Human Resources do for 3/4 of the year?

The same thing they do now. Handle complaints about managers that are promoted for being good employees instead of having a strong ability to manage.

[mjah]

But if they scrapped performance reviews, what would Human Resources do for 3/4 of the year?

Farmville would bring the Internet to its knees.

And that's why we need performance reviews: to literally save cyberspace.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I don't really care...however the part about employees feeling that their manager's opinions are important (as though it's a bad thing) is dumb. Now we're going to enter into an era where even adults are made not to fail??

Newsflash...when it comes to my career at my current company, the opinion that my manager (and his manager) has of me IS the most important aspect. That's how things are in real life.

[Botched]

I absolutely dread performance reviews. It's the most awkward situation ever.

[TheGreatBuzz]

You should look into the Navy system. That is complete crap. It has gotten to the point I just don't care about mine and laugh when they come out.

[LaxBuddy21]

My only problem with the performance reviews that we do is that we spend all this time outlining our strengths and weaknesses and everything we have accomplished throughout the year to try and show our boss things they may not have realized when assessing our value to the company only to find out that the assessment was made before the performance review occurred and your raise has already been determined. I do appreciate the feedback I get about what it takes for me to be at the next level in my job. My boss and I do not just do that annually though. We do it periodically throughout the year because I want to make sure I am doing everything I can to move up in the company.

[GibbsFactor]

I hate them. Been in performance review hell this entire month.

[MassSkinsFan]

Performance reviews can work. Just not in the traditional model.

I give them every quarter. The goals and objectives from the beginning of the year are discussed and adjusted if needed. If any are missed, we talk about that and decide whether they are "real" misses or not. This puts accountability on my employees to own up if they fail.

After we've gone over goals and objectives we review career development to see if the plan is on track. For people I see as successors this is particularly important.

Then I give the employee time to ask questions or raise concerns. I make it abundantly clear that the time is theirs and that as long as they are professional, they may raise any subject. For those who believe me, this is great because it's when we get the most out of the review. For those who don't believe me, I'll frankly let them know I suspect they don't believe me, and ask to discuss that with them. Sometimes it gets them to believe, sometimes not.

In the end, this approach does a few things:

• It keeps us focused on deliverables (goals and objectives) on a quarterly basis
  
• It puts accountability on us both to ensure we meet deadlines, and to also acknowledge when we fail
  
• It opens free-form dialogue that sometimes leads to insights or great suggestions
  

It's not perfect, but it's not as evil as some think.

My main problem with performance reviews is when managers either disengage and do them only once a year, or use them to justify punishing an employee by fabricating a tale about how bad that person is.

I also really hate the fact that they are tied so often to raises. If you have an outstanding team, you're still getting a 3% pool for raises, so even if your people are head and shoulders above everyone else in the company, some idiot who contributes jack might get a better raise because they are the star in an underperforming department. Grrrrrrrrr.

[TheLongshot]

Performance reviews have gotten ridiculous. It is now a process that takes up to 6 months to complete at my company, and I don't know if anything good comes out of it. For me, it is mostly a rubber stamp because the customer likes me for the most part, but for others it can be a real pain, especially coming up with "goals" for the next period.

[MassSkinsFan]

Performance reviews have gotten ridiculous. It is now a process that takes up to 6 months to complete at my company, and I don't know if anything good comes out of it. For me, it is mostly a rubber stamp because the customer likes me for the most part, but for others it can be a real pain, especially coming up with "goals" for the next period.

The goals part is tough. Most managers don't know what to do there. Many ask their employees to come up with their own goals.

There are strategic goals. Managers need to get them, then develop goals for their team. Then, they need to assign them. Those are given to the team member for comment. The team member call BS when something won't work or isn't realistic. Then it goes back up to the manager, who needs to do something to make it work.

At least that's how it is in my dreams.

[TheLongshot]

The goals part is tough. Most managers don't know what to do there. Many ask their employees to come up with their own goals.

Yeah, that's the way it is with us right now. Tough to come up with goals when your work is pretty static and probably won't change much in the near term. You can't really put "Get a more rewarding job" as one of your goals.

[Zguy28]

I'm thinking the author might have gotten a bad review his last go around.

[endzone_dave]

It's funny but every time I try to hand out even the least bit of constructive criticism at a performance review everyone has the look on their face like I just shot their dog.

Now I just give them their raise, say some nice things to them and get on with it. It's not like the performance reviews are going to change behaviors anyway.

Keeping the employees constantly informed is a much better way then forcing change in a performance review.

[Zguy28]

The goals part is tough. Most managers don't know what to do there. Many ask their employees to come up with their own goals.

At least that's how it is in my dreams.

MIne too. Not only does my manager make me write project plans, but we have to do all of our own goals and objectives too for the entire next year.

[Corcaigh]

If new information is being exchanged in a performance review or negotiation is taking place then ur doin' it wrong.

It's a review ... documenting what has already been discussed on perhaps a daily basis regarding performance and objectives. A performance review is not the time for telling an employee for the first time about job issues.

[TheLongshot]

If new information is being exchanged in a performance review or negotiation is taking place then ur doin' it wrong.

It's a review ... documenting what has already been discussed on perhaps a daily basis regarding performance and objectives. A performance review is not the time for telling an employee for the first time about job issues.

I had that happen at a previous job. It was very frustrating when you are told you are doing a good job until you get to the review and the criticism starts.

[SkinsHokieFan]

If new information is being exchanged in a performance review or negotiation is taking place then ur doin' it wrong.

It's a review ... documenting what has already been discussed on perhaps a daily basis regarding performance and objectives. A performance review is not the time for telling an employee for the first time about job issues.

Bingo.

I am lucky that I have had pretty good managers over the years, so I have never had "new" information at a review. Its always been "keep up the good work"

[GibbsFactor]

Yep, sounds like most managers suck. A performance review should have nothing shocking in it. If you can't speak with your staff, aren't aware of what you staff is doing, don't coach them or council them, how on earth do you expect to have an optimal department?

Managers should be holding one on ones, and should have enough notes and documentations to essentially have the evals done by them selves.

All the review is is a way of officially documenting your time here and showing justification for any compensation increase. In todays day and age, you have to have crazy documentation to terminate anyone. But again, nothing should be a surprise.

And for all of you that don't take your self evaluations seriously, shame on you. Do you really think everything is predefined? It's not. Most places have a lump sum and have to divy it up amongst staff. Self evals are the perfect time to make sure TPTB know exactly what you do for the company and how valuable you truly are. If you think your manager is going to remember all the good stuff, you are mistaken. So don't write some crap cause you think it doesn't matter.

Also, write up a good long review. Just might get you a salary adjustment (market adjustment), which as many know, crush any normal 3-5% raise.

[MassSkinsFan]

Yeah, that's the way it is with us right now. Tough to come up with goals when your work is pretty static and probably won't change much in the near term. You can't really put "Get a more rewarding job" as one of your goals.

If you have a good manager, that's an option for the "draft" goals...

Probably the right answer is to ask if there is a strategic set of goals from which you can write your more tactical goals.

Some managers would look at you like a deer in the headlights if you made that request. Dumbasses!