We’ve all seen the claims that performance reviews are (or at least should be) dead because they don’t do anything and no one likes giving or receiving them. I have to admit that I’m a bit old-school on this issue. I think they’re very important, and when done right, really help.
Why are performance reviews important? The biggest reason I still like performance reviews is because they give us a formal opportunity to celebrate success. Good managers do this on an ongoing basis, but let’s face it, not all managers are good managers. While it is very important to say thank you and specifically praise good work as it occurs, there’s also something powerful about listing all of the good work that’s been done recently in one setting. It can really help to improve morale when someone looks at all they’ve accomplished.
I am a big believer in strengths-based performance management, so I think that celebrating successes should be the primary focus of the review. Steve Roesler posted over at All Things Workplace about Peter Drucker and his thoughts on strengths-based performance management. The following quote nicely sums up why I believe in this approach:
One should waste as little effort as possible on improving areas of low competence. It takes far more energy and work to improve from incompetence to mediocrity than it takes to improve from first-rate performance to excellence. And yet most people--especially most teachers and most organizations--concentrate on making incompetent performers into mediocre ones. Energy, resources, and time should go instead into making a competent person into a star performer.
Steve also posted a very important caution about applying this principle as a rule that I think must be read hand-in-hand with any discussion about strengths-based performance management.
I also believe that reviews are still important from a documentation standpoint. Again, not all managers document things as they should. If an issue arises later, at least you’ll have something indicating that the appropriate discussions took place.
I believe the ultimate goal of performance management is to recognize, encourage, and reward employee behaviors that drive positive business results. Performance conversations should help team members to capitalize on their strengths and manage their weaknesses. Of course the ongoing daily conversations that supervisors have with their employees are much more effective and helpful at accomplishing this, but since those don’t always occur as they should, I’m still a believer in performance reviews.
Darcy Dees works as the Compensation Manager for Rock Bottom Restaurants, Inc., headquartered in Louisville, CO. She has been working in Compensation for over 5 years now and recently attained her Certified Compensation Professional (CCP) designation. She spends what little free time she has hiking and reading.
Right on, Darcy. I'm in your court on this one.
Another reason I've found in favor of doing performance review is the discipline they help create around addressing performance issues. I have worked with a number of companies who have taken an "enlightened" approach to performance management and abolished their review process. The biggest issue that crops up in these places (according to managers and employees, when I ask them) is the lack of action or urgency in addressing poor performers.
Great post. Will be interested to hear others' viewpoints.
Posted by: Ann Bares | 09/08/2009 at 06:49 AM
I agree. Managers often discount the importance of reviews. They don't make the time to complete them and offer vague feedback, resulting in ineffective reviews. I've found that employees want to be reviewed effectively. It's surprising that the employee actually sees the value in the process. Great post!
Posted by: Allyson Smith | 09/08/2009 at 09:47 AM
Nicely put. And thanks for adding the Steve/Peter quote, that about sums it up!
Posted by: working girl | 09/08/2009 at 10:00 AM
My company is going through the process of implementating performance management. Some of the pitfall w/o it are currently true: performance discussions often don't happen at all and performance issues are not addresses with any sense of urgency. It would be great if they were not necessary but that's just not the reality.
Posted by: Joe Rice | 09/09/2009 at 04:08 AM
I agree that performance reviews are important and necessary. But they also tend to be dreaded by employees and managers. Why? Because the forms and processes are too complex and not aligned with the realities of the workplace.
A few years ago, the principals of my firm (www.birchesgroup.com) conducted research about performance appraisal by asking groups of staff and managers around the world two simple questions: Do you know who the good/not so good performers are? How do you know? They answered the first question with an enthusiastic YES!
The answers varied a bit for the second question (how do you know?) but when the data was analyzed, it came down to just three simple concepts. The good performers were the ones who (1) have good ideas; (2) listen and adapt to their clients and customers; and (3) can be counted on to deliver results.
We have developed a system, called Community, which is centered around these simple concepts. The solution is an easy, practical approach which focuses on results (outputs) and feedback from clients and customers (both internal and external). Unlike many other systems, using it is intuitive, so requires little formal training, and can be deployed quickly.
The first pilot test, conducted in 80 countries, yielded nearly a perfect bell curve without resorting to complicated calibration meetings.
Contact me for more information.
Posted by: Warren Heaps | 09/09/2009 at 08:51 PM