The Truth About Performance Reviews
October 30th, 2008 by Cali & Jody
Wonderful piece in the Wall Street Journal online about why the performance review system is broken by Dr. Samuel Culbert, a consultant, author and professor of management at the UCLA Anderson School of Management in Los Angeles. Here are a few criticisms of why performance review systems in a traditional work environment suck (our words, not his), and how these same problems are neutralized by a Results-Only Work Environment:
1. A performance review is about the person and the work, instead of being only about the work.
As long as the job is done well, on time, and within legal and ethical rules, does it matter how it gets done? Performance reviews tend to focus on people’s strengths and weaknesses. In other words, you may be getting the job done, but if your boss doesn’t like the way you’re getting your job done you can get called out in a performance review.
In a ROWE, managers aren’t focused on work styles. If you want to pull an all-nighter to meet your deadlines, then that’s up to you. It’s none of your boss’s business, and they aren’t going to judge you for having an unorthodox work style. This frees people up to work in ways that work for them, instead of in ways that fit into the company’s norms.
2. Performance reviews require standardization, when little is standard about our global, 24/7 economy.
As human beings, we’re wired to judge. And often we’re wired to judge badly. Companies strive to create a formal review process, and then put that process in the hands of people who can’t help but have personal biases for (and against) their employees. Worse, bosses often aren’t aware of their own biases.
A Results-Only Work Environment doesn’t eliminate biases, but it does minimize their effects. If your workplace is dedicated to results instead of being a time-based or presence-based work culture, then it’s harder for managers to reward people who don’t do their job, but who simply play the game.
3. Performance reviews are an event, instead of a continuous discussion.
There is a date marked on the calendar for the (drum roll, please) performance review. As it nears, many people get a nauseous feeling because they a) have no idea what to expect or b) had an experience last year where they thought they knew what to expect…only to get socked in the stomach with something out of left field.
In a ROWE, performance discussions happen all the time. There are absolutely no surprises with the performance review because you always know where you stand.
4. Performance reviews give bosses all the power, which distorts the assessment of the work.
As Culbert notes, bosses want their employees to answer to them. This leads to leads to “inauthentic behavior, daily deception and a ubiquitous need for subordinates to spin all facts and viewpoints in directions they believe the boss will find pleasing. It defeats any chance that the boss will hear what subordinates actually think.”
In a ROWE, bosses use their power to coach rather than make demands. They want the truth, because only an honest assessment of the work can lead to results. When people are honest about the work, then they don’t need to pay lip service to hierachies and corporate customs.
Interestingly enough, what Culbert recommends is performance “previews,” which he notes “are problem-solving, not problem-creating” and generate “discussions about how we, as teammates, are going to work together even more effectively and efficiently than we’ve done in the past.”
Sounds a lot like life in a ROWE.
P.S. A big thanks to Ray Brown for the tip on this article!
What is worse is when the organization minimizes the importance of performance evaluations by not ever giving one to an employee. Sound unreal?
Well, as you all know…I have never received one in my almost 5 years here at the district.
That article is amazing! For those of us in government service the “performance review” has nothing to do with the raise we receive. That is decided by the legislature. All the review is for is a chance for the supervisor to point out your short-comings — it has nothing to do with your accomplishments.
Someday maybe the light will be seen by employers — but for now I have to make sure I complete my weekly time report each week (before it is actually due by payroll) — so it is easier for my supervisor to “monitor and identify”.
Great post…. I agree. As someone who gives these reviews, I wish there was a better way and I think you’re showing the beginnings of one
In my organization we are in the middle of performance review time, and our acting supervisor posted this article on the bulletin board last week. It was very timely!
I especially agree with
3. Performance reviews are an event, instead of a continuous discussion.
I’ve held some part time jobs and have received performance reviews at these jobs. All that happens unless I did something really stupid or truly remarkable is I get an average score for all the questions.
So pointless its just another corporate guideline that must be followed.
It also should not be an event but rather a surprise. Employees realize their review is coming up in a couple weeks so they step up and make sure to be on time or to do a little extra. If reviews are going to be done make it random.
Cali and Jody -
You just hit the heart of the problem in “Performance Reviews”. In our company, this is a nightmare. Every year, the morale goes down for about 2 months after the review period. Then a process of acceptance takes place - and this cycle repeats itself every year. I’ve been in this culture for many years. “The company” is behind this type of review 100%. Because we do not have goals, it is an unfair system in which behaviors are very important. If you are an employee who produces results but challenges the status quo, then you are treated differently. That becomes career suicide. You will not have good reviews because your behavior is toxic to that environment. They work very hard to create conditions to put you on probation. There have been situations in which employees become frustrated because they want their review to be changed, but the company “policy” is that once those reviews are written, they cannot be changed. If the employee refuses to sign the review, then the immediate retaliation is to not give them any raises, including for cost-of-living. So there is a very powerful system in which Management infuses fear to defend the status quo.
Performance reviews are used as weapons every year to justify managers’ existence. It is a document that is used to cover their mistakes - to blame their failures on employees and in essence, to perpetuate their mediocrity. By the way - we have too many managers and too many agendas. The goals of the company do not count - but only the managers’ personal gain. I could go on and on, but I just wanted to bring this issue to discussion because I think that this is a universal problem that is affecting everybody.
Looks like the current state of performance reviews (or not having performance reviews) is striking a nerve as well. We can remember the days before we created ROWE - literally filling in our “goals” for the year that had already passed the day before our reviews! There just wasn’t an emphasis on laying out clear, measurable goals at the beginning of the year and then conversing about them as the year progressed. HR tried to make it important, but when left up to teams, managers, and employees, the process just didn’t get executed.
We’ve told you how one of the first questions we get from leadership teams when they hear about ROWE is: “How will we know what people are doing?” How scary is it to be exposed for not knowing that *now*?
ROWE completely changes the way we set performance expectations…and for the sake of companies across the country (and the world), we’re glad.
Here are some gems from my performance review. Mind you, this was modified to more effectively evauluate employees in the corporate side of our company, so this is supposedly the improved version.
There are several sections that serve as the key eavluation points. Each is weighted differently, but the key problem is none of them deal with actual performance directly.
The categories are:
Knowledge;
Decision Making/Analytical Skill;
Improvement Team Skill (essentially how many teams am I on);
Writing Skills;
Speaking Skills;
Interpersonal Skills;
Personal Focus and Productivity;
Effective Supervision (doesn’t apply - managers only);
Effective Performance Measurement (doesn’t apply - managers only);
Function Management (doesn’t apply - managers only);
Attitude.
Where’s the evaluation for Completed Projects? Effective Project Management? Productivity Gains? These are basically all perception judgments coming from my supervisor. If improvement of my writing/speaking skills really is a result trying to be achieved, wouldn’t that make my company a school?.
The funny thing is, there is another section that is actually called “Unrated (emphasis theirs) Perceptions and Observations”. According to the guidelines, these things are not supposed to influence the overall rating from the other sections, since this is a “results oriented” environment. If that is the case, why even include it on the sheet? Why not just call the whole review form “Supervisor’s Perceptions and Judgments About Employee”? This form, along with the pay recommendation form (which I mentioned earlier, barely addresses actual performance) tells me no one cares about what I actually do, they just want me to walk the line.
It’s very interesting sometimes Performance Reviews makes sense, but mostly it’s not like that
So, our yearly performance reviews came in today (no, we don’t really even discuss them, just read the written version and sign…). To make a long story very short, I was rating below average on one category… relating well with others and professional service. The reason? I did not attend enough meetings. Yep! Meetings. In fact, there was a nice little paragraph about all the other things I did well on a professional level, but when it came down to the numbered rating for that category, I was below average… because of poor attendence at meetings.
J&C… where is that list of ROWE companies???
[...] coming up on performance review time. Cali and Jody do a quick review of the four problems with the current performance review process from an article in the Wall Street [...]
@Matt - those are indeed gems. Somehow we did get to the point where *performance* reviews are, mostly, based on perceptions and judgments. It seems that everyone we talk with has the same view, and even many managers dread having review discussions because they know they’re not really addressing what matters (in the big scheme of things). As the focus on results spreads (not results-oriented, but results-ONLY), changes to the performance review system will be inevitable.
@Persephone K and everyone - the ROWE list of companies is almost here. Putting the final touches on some Web copy for when it goes up. Stay tuned!