Get Rid of the Performance Review?
SteveTonight on the HR Happy Hour Show, our guest will be UCLA Professor Samuel Culbert, author of the recent book, 'Get Rid of the Performance Review!'.
Show time is 8PM EDT and the call in number is 646-378-1086.
From the title alone, it is abundantly clear where Professor Culbert stands on the issue, and in the book he makes his argument clearly and forcefully.
According to Culbert performance reviews are fatally flawed for the following reasons (there are a few more in the book, but these are the major ones):
1. They are completely one-sided, boss-dominated exercises, where only one opinion matters, the boss, and employees quickly learn to adapt and adjust to 'boss-pleasing' behavior, that is not necessarily in the best interests of the organization as a whole.
2. The notion of 'pay for performance' that is embraced by so many organizations, is largely BS, and that compensation is mostly a product of market conditions, whether the firm desires to retain an employee, and the available budget to adjust pay treatment. Performance, especially as documented in the formal review, factors very little into this compensation decision.
3. Performance reviews actually have the opposite of the desired effect, to help employees improve and develop. They are de-motivating, de-humanizing, and effectively sour the most important relationship in the organization, that of boss-employee.
That is the gist of the arguments made in the book that argue for the abolishment of the performance review as most of us recognize it.
Professor Culbert then continues in the book to offer and describe his suggested alternative to the formal, traditional annual performance review, a construct he has termed the 'Performance Preview', a kind of ongoing, two-way dialogue centered around discussion of some key questions that are meant to better inform and equip both the boss and the employee as to each other's needs, styles, and work preferences.
Rather than dive in to all the details of the 'Preview', (I have to save something for the show), I would rather get your opinions on the issue of performance reviews, and perhaps some insights into your experiences with them, both administering them as a manager, and receiving them as an employee.
So to help me out in preparation for the show tomorrow, please drop a comment letting me know where you stand on performance reviews.
Are they:
1. Essential to the management of people and the alignment of effort to organizational objectives
2. A largely administrative process meant to provide legal backup for disciplinary procedures
3. A great tool for employee development, if only we could teach managers to really coach and mentor employees more effectively
4. A complete waste of time, and a soul-crushing, morale killing exercise in futility, and they should be abolished.
5. Something else entirely.
Let me know what you think in the comments, or send out a tweet with your thoughts in the next couple of days - just be sure to tag it with #HRHappyHour.
Oh yeah, please feel free to rate the effectiveness of this post, my self-assessment gives it a solid 'Meets Objectives'.
Reader Comments (6)
I say #3... if it's done properly!
Looking forward to the show tomorrow - I'm going to try to call in and participate.
Good performance management is really just good management - the "Performance Review" gets a bad wrap due to it being misused - while if it is a simple process to facilitate a good conversation it can really help. I'll save the rest for the show, but it's a great debate and a good chance to dig into what "talent management" really means.
Though the last one I had to do to people was 20 years ago, I still believe the Performance Review is a jigsaw puzzle that managers have to solve correctly in order to give out the raises they've already decided on before the process began.
I need this show and I will be at a school open house at show time. So give me a good archive! I'm also a number 3 with pieces of 1 and 2. We just don't call it a 'performance review' - we call it the "Big Yearly Pow-Wow" and yes we go over pay raises and performance goals. But, it is way more collaborative.
I'm curious what the difference will be when a "Preview" is positive vs when a "Preview" is negative? Certainly talk of meeting the needs of both the employer and employee is a great strategy. But, sometimes, especially in the hourly world, when performance goes south it is not that easy. There are negatives that have to be addressed. How does a "Preview" address the negative? Want to know... via show, or tell me to buy the book!
I'm going to go with #5. Too often reviews are substitutes for managers to talk to their staff. They are often one-sided because too many managers use them as the annual "okay, let me tell you how I think you're doing" without much insight, or feedback, from employees. I love #4 becuase if HR people were honest, they'd want to scream this !!
PS - I've never seen a review hold up as a "defense" because employee's lawyers look for the one minute positive comment in a mountain of contrary information and stick to that as the employer stating a positive aspect of their performance. And, rarely, is someone as "horrible" as some reviews state. BTW - the person usually gets the highest scores with comments that are just the opposite !!
I'd love to see performance management systems really focus on development, but that is a company culture decision not a paper decision.
This should be a rapid-fire HR Happy Hour tonight !! Have fun with the topic !! We'll be there for you.
Steve
@Sean - Thanks very much Sean, I know you have seen and been part of many organizations that do in fact do a great job with this process, so your perspective is valuable
@Bill - A point that is made also in the book, I think the 'pay for performance' proponents have to make their case tonight
@Lyn - Love the name! Yes, we will make sure it is a good show for the archives!
@Steve - Thanks so much, it is going to be a good dialogue tonight, and I hope you can participate.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your interesting blog. Here are a few additional thoughts on the topic:
1 Performance reviews were originally intended to be constructive and multidirectional however, when preformed once a year, are not effective. There is too much pressure on the manager and individual to the point where it becomes an artificial and inflated exercise. Performance Reviews based on ‘generic’ competencies/capabilities are ineffective and meaningless to employees. They should be used as a part of a quarterly performance framework assessing and developing S.M.A.R.T objectives. 360° feedback initiative may also help revitalise the performance management process. It is important to remember that there needs to be some structure/effective measure of individual performance to determine the impact on bottom line. New generations love thinking they have created something fresh. I think Professor Culbert is encouraging us to go ’back to basics’ (creatively).
2 Market forces dictate remuneration, to some degree, with an extreme example of this a footballer’s salary. While pay should be linked to performance it should consider a range of behaviours relating to the job, such as customer relations, both internal and external.
3 Performance reviews only have ‘the opposite to the desired effect’ when an organisation doesn’t care about its employees, management principles or respect their staff. If an organisation embraces the value of Human Capital then they will ensure that 40% of a manager’s time should be spent on people management, rather than considering this as a tacked on responsibility to their usual job. It’s about easy systems, quality relationships, treating people like adults, concentrating the dialogue on strengths and building on them, keeping the links to the business clear and making the process meaningful instead of a bureaucratic, nightmarish chore for all involved.
4 Poor performance management is rife currently, with performance reviews as the tip of the iceberg. In many cases poor performance management is the antecedent to conflict issues. Without the necessary skills to effectively manage employees, conflict will lead to grievances, disciplinaries, and in some cases tribunerials. These consequences all equal £££. In order to reduce these problems and maximise on human capital, organisations firstly need to train their managers how to manage people and performance and then work on the tools to help them achieve this i.e. performance reviews. Getting rid, or re-naming Performance Reviews might be one answer. Re-invigorating them, clarifying and adjusting the focus, another.