It seems you cannot pick up a Human Resources professional journal these days, or even the business section of a major newspaper, without spotting an article touting the benefits of eliminating the traditional annual performance appraisal. In fact, recently entire books have been written endorsing its elimination. The experts attack the traditional performance appraisal system with a zeal and passion I have not seen before. In many ways, I interpret their attacks as bordering on the irrational. I welcome challenges to the status quo. And change is important to stay current. But I recommend caution when considering complete elimination of a fundamental and key tool for managers and staff alike.physion
There are many generalizations made about performance reviews. One such notion is that all traditional performance appraisal systems are flawed. I see this in many of the books and articles I have read on the subject. Yet, where's the data? I believe that while the traditional system has problems, they are exaggerated and oversimplified by the proponents of a new-age performance feedback system that lacks accountability. The experts throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water, failing to recognize that the traditional system, though it has some weaknesses, can still work effectively. I contend that the movement away from the traditional review is a dangerous one, and may lead us down the road of low or no accountability in business. In this article, I will explore this trend and the reasons for it, the alternatives to the traditional review as advocated by the “experts,” the dangers inherent in eliminating it, and a common-sense solution for bringing the current performance review process into the twenty-first century. The allure of a management job without having to write a performance review is strong. However, in the long run, this migration away from a tried and true system will cause more problems than it purports to fix.
The Flawed System
First, let us explore what I think is a gross generalization and mischaracterization about the review process, i.e., that it is deeply flawed.
Quite candidly, if the traditional performance review obligation were removed unilaterally from all managers, you would likely hear a collective cheer throughout the country. Why is it such a hated process? Because most managers go about it incorrectly, and businesses simply do not train on the proper methodology. We get bogged down in the completion of the form and the process, as opposed to recognizing the inherent benefits of a good review. We view the form not as a means to an end, but an end in itself. Whether you write the performance review on the back of a matchbook or on an official performance review form really makes no difference. The differentiator is in the time it takes you to consider and write the review, the amount of input from the associate for whom the review is being done, and the qualitative performance discussions that are part of that review. These all demonstrate that you care about the individual's career development. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that, in many organizations, the review process is not nurtured, nor is it encouraged. It is viewed mainly as an obligation for managers. It is not uncommon to hear managers groan at the end of the review year, “Oh no! It's review time again. Where am I going to find the time to get all of these reviews done?” Human Resources departments are charged with ensuring that managers meet their performance review commitments. They routinely chase after managers and literally beat them up to get reviews done. In many cases, no one, other than the manager writing the review and the employee receiving it, ever takes the time to read the review. And since managers do not take it seriously, they often “pencil-whip” their way through the process. Thus, employees on the receiving end do not put much stock in it. So, the first reason the so-called experts use as a rallying cry for the elimination of the review is that no one takes it seriously. Is it any wonder?
0
0
