Jul 9, 2010

Is Stopping Performance Apparaisals Better?

My twitter friend @beastoftraal shared this article (you should read the full article)
Annual Job Review Is 'Total Baloney,' Expert Says An excerpt given below:
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.

In fact, if firms did nothing else but just kill off this process they'd immediately be better off. When it comes to performance reviews, there's no question that nothing is better than something. That's how bad they are. The mission of this book is to put corporate executives on notice that they have created a monster. With the help of performance reviews, they've built a corporate culture where bullshit, not straight talk, is the communication etiquette of choice. The result is a managerial mess that they better deal with, and fast.

One of the biggest issues with performance management process is that only one end is shown rigor in. Performance appraisals are linked to pay increases and the "normalization" process across employees can (and does) result in unfairness.

The biggest reason? There is little of the normalization during goal setting time across departments and businesses - and people are measured for different things in the same group.

But the biggest reason is that managers are not adept at giving performance feedback - on an ongoing basis. As someone asked: "Would Roger Federer be a better player if his coach conducted an annual performance appraisal?"

Performance improvement feedback has to be immediately and managers need to judge what is keeping employees from improving - skill or will - and then focus on addressing the root cause and not the symptom.