E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIt’s no secret that many employees dread performance reviews. What is surprising, however, is that the very people who help promote them in companies dislike them too.
Nearly half of human resources managers don’t think annual performance reviews are accurate appraisals of employee performance, according to a recently released survey by the Society of Human Resource Management and Globoforce, an employee recognition company.
The poll found that 45 percent of HR leaders thought reviews weren’t good gauges of a worker’s performance, compared to 39 percent last year. The increase points to “a more heightened concern from HR leaders about the shortfalls of traditional performance management,” said Globoforce CEO Eric Mosley. The email survey, taken from December 2011 through January 2012, polled 770 HR professionals who work for companies with 500 or more employees.
“Annual performance reviews continue to be the lightning rod for what’s wrong with traditional performance management,” he added.
The benefits versus the pitfalls of such reviews are part of an ongoing debate in American corporations. But there is no real movement to reassess this often-flawed management tool because it’s been around for years and is so ingrained in the workplace.
Samuel Culbert, author of “Get Rid of the Performance Review!: How Companies Can Stop Intimidating, Start Managing--and Focus on What Really Matters,” is calling for the demise of performance reviews.
Culbert, a management professor at UCLA's Anderson School of Management, is against performance reviews because they can be demoralizing to workers, are not accurate or objective, and they use meaningless metrics.
“If it were God giving me a review that would be fair. But anyone short of God, I don’t think so,” he quipped.
When asked why employers keep administering reviews even though the recent data shows many HR managers aren’t on board, he had a list of reasons.
“Even though they hate getting and giving reviews and know they are bogus, they are comfortable with it,” he explained. “It’s the enemy they know.”
He also believes managers “love the sense of power they get from performance reviews. They like the fact that under the performance review, they are all-knowing. What they say is all that counts. Who doesn’t like that kind of power?”
And in the end, he maintained, it’s the human resources department that gets “much of its power from championing, running and having access to all the reviews. They have a lot of self-interest in preserving this ridiculous, morale-busting and results-damaging practice.”
Globoforce’s Mosley thinks it’s just a matter of habit for most employers, but he said some organizations are looking for alternatives, including “crowdsourcing feedback.”
It’s basically peer-to-peer reviews in real time, he explained. His company provides a web-based solution whereby employees and managers can nominate each other for rewards for a host of things they do at work, everything from helping out on a project to coming up with a new innovation. All that information is documented in a database, and managers can use the data to assess worker performance over a whole year, without forgetting the many contributions employees made, he said.
If crowdsourcing in the review process does catch on, employees will have more than just their boss’ opinion to worry about come review and raise season. It might be time to start playing some office politics.
Leave a Comment:
I worked for a certain GE philosophy following company and their performance reviews were ridiculous. The CEO divided a company of 130,000 employees into 6 job titles. Whichever title you were closest to, you copied those goals and pasted them as your own (dispite the fact they the goals had nothing at all to do with you're day to day functions). Then come review time, you were graded not against your goals, which were irrelevant anyways, but against your peers. The bottom 10% were put on a PIP. This was never me, but nonetheless, ridiculous. Then the manager would pull out a "negativity" file, which contained notes from all the times your manager thought you screwed up. Maybe it was that you took too long to respond to an email, another employee complained about you, etc. My manager graded me down because, while I met my goals, I completed many of them at the end of the year, as opposed to staggering them throughout the year. There was no point in the conversation in which we were praised or allowed to highlight how we met or surpassed our goals.
None of this mattered anyway, we were on a 3 year wage freeze despite $2B+ in profits. Needless to say, I left that company. You couldn't pay me enough to be a manager in that system.
As a supervisor who does reviews - I hate them.
Let's be honest - those in the workforce are generally adults who know exactly what their strengths/weakness are. To have to sit down and write a review and then to sit with an employee to tell them what they already know is a complete waste of time.
As an employee who gets reviewed - I hate them. Again - I know my strengths and weaknesses and I find it rather amusing when my supervisor tries to tell me that I have to work on the latter (as if I was ignorant of the weaknesses and them telling me about them will be some sort of revelation to me that will make me see the error of my ways).
Reviews are a joke - from both sides of the desk.
This article is slanted to lead us to believe that evaluations are useless. I disagree. When used properly, evaluations are an excellent tool to help mentor employees. If an employee is doing an outstanding job, this is just one of many opportunities to express that to them. If an employee has some shortcomings, this is the perfect time to let them know what those shortcomings are and how to overcome them. If evaluations are "bogus" it is the supervisor's/manager's fault for not knowing how to effectively use the tools available.
unfortunately there are too many managers that don't know how to provide an evaluation that means something. Most couldn't mentor themselves out of a box much less provide constructive feedback on how to improve.
I certainly see your point, however many companies don't have such a straight forward system for their managers. In other words, some companies require forced rankings, or a specific number of good and bad feedback, or a specific bell curve you need to hit. And any company that says they "pay for performance" only to determine the raise bucket and develop ratings from that is setting their managers up to lack integrity. Once this chain is broken, it's difficult for the manager to be so candid and honest because they don't truly have a carrot to offer to instill trust in what they are saying.
if an employee has a short comming your suggesting that you wait a year or for a specific date to tell them?? that is stupid on more lvls than can be counted and is used by mgmt because management has no idea what a true LEADER is.
any moron can manage its takes real intelligence to lead
Kael, the operative phrase here is "when used properly".
Absolutely! They're only as effective as those who write them!
Kael sorry, but you are wrong. Employees should be given feedback at the time that things happen, not wait for months and months until review time to go over everything. It all becomes meaningless with time-wasting formality.
I'm all for scrapping performance appraisals, too, but there is a very important point to keep in mind. Employers who wind up in wrongful termination litigation without documentation are defenseless. Worse, if you have documentation but it's not accurate, that can blow up in your face. The fact of the matter is that employers must document job performance/employee behavior related issues. Do they need the conventional performance appraisal to do that? Of course not! But they'd better have something in place.
If you are using annual reviews for dismissal doccumentation, then you are doing it wrong. By the time someone is dismissed you should have records of employee warnings that were issued close to the times of the infractions.
As a supervisor over a team of three, I have to agree that the yearly eval is stupid. If a supervisor can't get the issue of behavior or methodology change across as needed, they're not much of a supervisor. I don't wait for the eval window to get involved.
When doing evals, I always ask if there's something I need to change or look at. Sometimes the question is answered with a good suggestion or change in methodology. Once in a great while it deals with another team member.
It's simply fairness.
I absolutely hate the eval process I go through. It's basically, "sign the paper & Here ya go."
If you haven't already, watch Deadliest Catch's Inside the Catch: Best Brawls on the Discovery Channel. Andy Hillstrand sums up the worth of Human Resources quite adequately.
Having worked for companies that required them,and being a manager, I administered countless reviews, but because I did the right thing by communicating with my employees on both good and bad in real time, I had no issues at review time. Each employee knew exactly what to expect. I worked with those that needed the help and rewared their successes. Did I like the review process no! It was a complete waste of time for me and the employee. Performance reviews are just lazy management. What is in a review that a manger could not cover with an employee at anytime throughout their daily job. NOTHING.. The good employees would appreciate hearing how great they are doing when it happens insteady of it being lost in the formalities on the review. On the other hand the not so good employees dont like to hear about their mistakes, and just really need help to understand how to do better. So, what is missed, is the impact in moral, the appreciation for good work not getting the attention deserved, and under performers not getting help with their issues. for many managers it is easier to hit them in review with an issue from 6 months ago..... I wonder why employees dont have commitment to companies, why it takes so long to fix problems, why the motivation is lost.... Any ideas? I know what works and it's not reviews, treat employees with respect, be honest ( good or bad) be timely, and show appreciation for good work.
Aaaaaahhhhh....the joys of the annual review!! Luckily, I work in an organization where regardless of what you do, everyone gets a 3 and the same percentage for a raise....then, management takes whatever's leftover and splits it amongst themselves as raises.....so they are breaking the bank....it doesn't help that we have one employee who works a 18 hr week while another sleeps at her desk....such fun here!!!
I've always hated performance reviews, even though my reviews have always been positive. The biggest problem with them, to me, is that they lack any true discussion of my performance and my and my manager's expectations for the future. Instead of having me fill out a form answering questions about my strengths, weaknesses, goals and expectations, let me work with the manager over a period of time to discuss those things. That way, instead of saying "I intend to learn more about my job, and get better organized," we can put together something specific that actually leads me to improve myself, works towards a specific goal that will help the company, and allows the manager to help me along that path. If all that comes out of that is "complete project X by July and complete planning stages for project Y by year end," that's fine. At least it's specific.
I remember our performance reviews as inaccurate, demoralizing, and extremely biased according to a supervisor's personal likes and dislikes. Also they were top-down only. When I made a suggestion that employees regularly evaluate their supervisors for professionalism, freedom from bias, etc. it was, strangely enough, never implemented. Go figure.
it's just a way to get rid of some people that boss doesn't like officially.
Cellisis, I have to chuckle at your comment (not that I disagree, just a personal experience)...I used to work for a company and my direct boss and I got along great. Our skill sets complimented each other well...where he was weak, I was strong and vice versa. So, every year I got a good review. However, the president of the company and I HATED each other. We agreed on virtually nothing and every day he complained about something that I was doing (or not doing). Then my immediate supervisor left the company and I had to work directly for the president (uggh). Again, we hated each other and agreed on nothing and everyday I came to work wondering if he was going to fire me that day. Then after one particular bad episode I told the HR manager when she tried to give me some advice on dealing with him that I just didn't give a crap anymore...if he wants to fire me, then fire me. I told her that I'm sick and tired of his abusive language and his tyrannical behavior (very common to drop the F-bomb in meetings). I think she said something to him because after that, he started treating me better...well, at least, professionally (he still hated me). I guess once he realized I didn't care enough about the job to take the abuse, he stopped because I think he realized that he needed me more than I needed that job...I was the only one in the company who knew certain processes and computer systems. He couldn't afford to fire me because there was no one who could just jump in and take over my responsibilities! Then about a month after that incident, my wife, who was 11 wks pregnant miscarried. I spent the night in the ER, went to work the next morning but left at noon to go be with my family who was obviously mourning the loss (my 7 yr old son was really looking forward to being a big brother). I got word through the grapevine that he complained in a staff meeting to all the directors about me taking time off....the direct quote was "what's done is done. He can't do anything about it, why does he need to go home?" Once I heard that, I said F you and found a position with another company within 2 wks. Happier times...my commute went from 30 minutes each way to 5 minutes each way...I work directly for the owner of the company and we get along great. And it's family friendly!!!!! Hell, they even paid my salary while I was on a military leave of absence for a month in Europe (not required by law and previous companies I worked for never did that)!!!!!!!
There was a great article on Forbes a few months back that summed it up nicely for the employee....... the quicker you learn to not care about the review, depend on it for promotions, self-esteem, honest feedback, etc, the better off you'll be. In other words, the faster you learn to ignore it and focus on what really matters to you, the more satisfaction you'll have. I think there's some truth to that.
A couple of others have pointed out the concept of reviews serving as corporate documentation to mitigate litigation risk. This is accurate and important. The "real" problem - a problem that gives rise to many others - is that the performance review is positioned as a support for corporate performance when it is in fact a risk management tool.
This illustrates the reason why, in my opinion, HR needs to be broken up in most companies. One central purpose of HR is to protect the company from its employees. Another purpose of HR is to identify and apply ways for the company to get more value from its talent. These two purposes cannot exist side by side - they are inherently orthogonal.
The strategic HR functions of talent management need to be moved into a corporate strategic planning function where they can sit side-by-side with finance, M&A, and other strategic functions. Meanwhile, the risk management functions of Employee Relations can either return to legal or remain with the transactional "personnel" functions like payroll and staffing.
A structure like this would reveal the conflict built in to performance reviews and would force companies to adopt a different structure that would make more sense - for example, a strong goal-planning and communication program and intensive focus on both ongoing manager - employee dialogue as well as "crowdsourcing" of feedback. Performance problems and behavioral problems could still be documented, but the employee relations piece would be separate and wouldn't pollute the principles, processes, and practices that are designed to support and increase engagement and performance.
Yep, the last job review I had was totally bias under new management and I was thrown under the bus and eventually terminated. I was infuriated that HR people were not being completely honest.
But that's okay, I work even less, you retard, and take home even more money! Baahahaha!
I had a rather horrible review 8 years ago. It was my annual review, I go into my supervisors office, take a seat, I have been with the company for 13 years. "Frankly we are not happy with your performance, attitude, and one of our doctor's would love to see you fired, but you're such a hard worker, we will not be giving you a raise, and will reevaluate in 90 days." My response was "And why has this not been brought up to my attention." He had no response and I did not sign the review. Got my resume in order, and left the job, best thing I have ever did! My supervisor was fired 3 months after I left, and the doctor left too, shortly after that, hehehe!
why can't we just perform a review every ten years?
Heh. Considering the average length of time someone works in a single job (at least in my field) is about 5 years... I'd support that! :-)
As an HR professional for 25 years, performance reviews are counter productive. Mostly because managers do not even know how to provide good feedback to employees. That's all folks need -- feedback and guidance on a regular basis. It's a matter of breaking this ugly cycle and reconditioning to a better way.
I'd love your thoughts on the below:
Burn the annual performance review
If you meant this to be a link, it doesn't work. Can you please repost? Our organization was rife with supervisors who bullied, exhibited bias, and practiced favoritism. I submitted a proposed 'supervisor evaluation form'---a simple Likert scale with such questions for employees as, "My supervisor is accessible when needed," and "My supervisor treats us fairly and without bias." It got nowhere, of course. It seems that management liked to make employees squirm, but had no taste for the reverse.
ACES Answer Kimberly! I grade your response EXCELLENT
A big issue with performance reviews is that the manager may have a fixed dollar amount for raises that needs to be split up amongst his/her team. So one or more people could end up getting the shaft if they cannot give that person the raise they deserve so there's another reason for a crappy review. then you have upper management who says that noone can get beyond a "meets expectations" or "needs improvement" because they don't want to promote to higher grade level that would include a raise and bigger bonus pool. the whole thing stinks.
Can anyone tell me how to respond to a review by people who only talk to me ten minutes a quarter, never work with me or see me otherwise. How and who does this help?
Kim:
I would, but.it might get you fired.
Either that or promoted, ala "Office Space"!
Maybe discuss with your HR dept privately? Remember..this review impacts YOUR MONEY!! Make sure you are protecting yourself.
Well, then, I stand by my original opinion, and have decided that all that really matters is what I think of myself. Unfortunately, the people at the top never agree.
The only real way to review is do it consistently and constantly. I was in charge of a group of customer service agents that were on the phone most of their day with customers. At their 6mo and 1 yr reviews , we set and revised goals and standards but the most important part is to sit down EVERY month one on one to discuss not only what you think but what they feel as well. If they received comments from customers, sales rep, vendors etc, i noted in their file. Any notable actions that I witnessed or was aware of, i noted. its IMPOSSIBLE to sit down once a year and expect any kind of realistic review to take place. The MANAGER and ASSOCIATE have to team up to make sure everything is in place for their success!
At the last company I worked for, performance reviews were like some kind of payback. If you made a mistake, you could correct the mistake and never make it again, and it would come up as a strike against you on your review. I found the process harmful to employees, because there was always that punishment, even if the were generally good employees. I can see a manager noting mistakes, but there has to be some room for human error.
Employees should always respond to criticisms on their performance reviews in writing. Nothing should go on your permanent record without a reasonable response.
I have worked for 3 Fortune 100 companies, and in only 1 did I think that the performance reviews were fair with clear definitions of work well done and room for improvement. Additionally, they really did have 360 degree reviews and very open communication between employee and bosses through out the year. I still have all my stock in P&G because of their complete attention to shareholder value and consumer needs and wants coming first - excercised through excellent people management systems. I also worked for two other companies that were built on fiefdoms. The sole objective was to make the king happy (who may know nothing about your business, client/consumer base or function) even if it compromised shareholder value, consumer needs or wants, or demonstrated a definite poor use of corporate funds and/or broke employment law or standard corporate ethics or morals. Ultimately, I started my own business to ensure that consumer needs and wants come first, people in my world are fairly treated, and ultimately so I can lay my head down every night knowing that during the day, no one tried to compromise my integrity.
Wow... the guy quoted in the article must have received some pretty harsh reviews based on the way he bashes them.
As a former manager who oversaw 25 employees at two locations, the reason for the reviews was simple. Since it has become almost impossible to just fire bad employees anymore, the reviews are necessary to have in someone's file as justification for when they file a grievance after you let them go.
Without performance reviews a company would end up failing because it kept incompetent people and failed to retain the best people. Sure the process isn't perfect. Do you take medicine for an illness? Those medicines aren't perfect and may kill you if your body doesn't accept them. But the risk of not taking the meds is worse. Only ignorant people believe that any process can be made perfect. You develop the best process you can and try to improve it over time. That is the definition of quality! This article is crap!
I've taken these reviews for years and they really haven't changed, their worthless.
How about this one, I am given a performance evaluation to grade how I view my performance, so I give my self a serious eval. If I think I'm weak, I mark it in, if I feel I am outstanding I marked accordingly. My supervisor disagrees with me and gives me superior performance on everything and hands it in.Great opportunity for improvement, I'm perfect, I don't work for the government either.