Finally, Some Frank Talk About the Failings of An Old Paradigm
Does the process help boost organizational output, increase throughput? Doubtful. Does it make the employee feel good? Unlikely. One would be motivated to ask the logical question: “Why do we keep doing them?” I would say: “It’s a bad habit for which we…yet have no replacement.”
“First, they’re dishonest and fraudulent. And second, they’re just plain bad management,” writer and UCLA professor Culbert says in a radio interview the week of July 6.
Tough talk from (what looks like) a not-so-friendly-looking guy. (I wouldn’t want a Review from the likes of him!) But, he’s right: performance reviews don’t do much to get out in the open the challenges in the business nor facilitate a discussion of the possible solutions.
Employees come to the process anxious about its impact on their pay or career. Supervisors, managers are given a limit of how much the pay can be increased and, that small view, becomes the focus of the discussion: what did you do well? — and, of course, that becomes the employees shield — and how much more money am I going to give you. Which, of course, the boss knows before he heads into the Review.
People want their work to matter, to mean something. And, the annual Review doesn’t facilitate such a goal. The process is devoid of humanity, in many cases.
“Once you set up the metrics, that’s the only focus for the employee,” Culbert says. “The problem with performance reviews is that the metric that counts most for the employee is the boss’s opinion. So the employee starts doing what he or she thinks is going to score in the boss’s mind, and not even talk about what he or she believes is necessary for the company to get the results that really matter.”
For anyone who would like to gauge where they stand on the annual review issue, Culbert and Rout have posted a test on their site, with the slightly biased title of How Much Do You Hate Performance Reviews?