I work for a turnaround company. And, thankfully, things are turning around due to a lot of hard work and leadership's willingness to try something different.

We're having a spirited debate over Peformance Reviews and whether or not to establish this process.

I have always had mixed emotions about these reviews. Some of my general observations:


It doesn't matter how good a job you've done all year or what you've accomplished, it's usually the last 30 days that count.
They're usually personal, not based upon facts, so very subjective
Performance feedback should be happening on a continual basis. While it's never happened to me personally, several of my colleagues have walked into these reviews and gotten slammed for not meeting some unknown objective, or (as the author says) "your coworkers have come to me and said...." It's humiliating.
At Amoco your raise was tied to it. In the last couple of years I was there they started requiring managers to "force rank" their employees, they could only award a certain number of excellents etc. TO me, if all employees aren't performing, whose fault is that? The manager's! They should be coaching and guiding - and if the person is wrong for the job they should spare the employee the humiliation of sub-standard work and find the right job for them - or do them a favor and let them go...


So maybe the annual process isn't the way to go, but we definitely need something.

Creak, groan... that's me gingerly stepping down from the sopabox.

Anyone have something to share on this subject - offer up a review process that actually drives the right behavior?? :bigwave:

I think you nailed the problem. Can't live with 'em (especially when they do not have a raise), can't live without them (they didn't really ever tell you if you were doing a good job or not). Its effectiveness is complicated, supported and/or defeated by the corporate culture, too. I doubt if there is a definitive good answer to this question!

Oh, wait....there is one definitive answer:

It depends! :cool:

My recent review was great! Exceeded all aspects of performance on the form! I love 'em!:notme::rolleyes:;)

My experience is that's it's a lot to do with the organization's management culture and style plus how the thing is administered and actioned. A looooong time ago, when I worked for Rank Xerox their eval. was great - but then they were a great company to work for, some of the best processes and management I've ever experienced.

Others have been really bad. A previous employer did an on-line survey (admittedly, it was a 'cultural vitality' survey not a performance review) and, of course, they did nothing about the results, because it didn't fit with their expectations! Guess what? Most of us don't work there now!;):rolleyes:

Great comments so far on a very important subject.

I hate performance reviews - almost all aspects of them. :mad: It's so easy to get them wrong, and doing so can cause a lot of damage.

In a turnaround group, perhaps people could instead run on short cycles based on team projects, and celebrate positive results in a more timely way than annual reviews. :2cents:

Last year when doing my Performance Development Review the question was asked "What are your aspirations?"

My answer (and this is the truth)..."I aspire to not aspire."

Not one comment came back:lol:

Last year when doing my Performance Development Review the question was asked "What are your aspirations?"

My answer (and this is the truth)..."I aspire to not aspire."

Not one comment came back:lol:

Randy - Don't you want to be rich and famous? BSI's Auditor of the Year? C'mon - it sounds like you've given up! Maybe 'most southern Cover'? There must be something......

Hmmm AndyN wonder who you're talking about...

Jennifer I like the way you're thinking.

I think that's the right approach, everyone focused on the objectives immediately at hand.

Thanks everyone:bigwave:

It doesn't matter how good a job you've done all year or what you've accomplished, it's usually the last 30 days that count. - Only if they are done annually, surely?
They're usually personal, not based upon facts, so very subjective Sign of a bad process & lack of understanding/skill on part of the reviewer
Performance feedback should be happening on a continual basis. Yes it "should" in theory. But does it actually? What makes it happen? Far too often, this means it actually happens never/only very rarely.
At Amoco your raise was tied to it. In the last couple of years I was there they started requiring managers to "force rank" their employees, they could only award a certain number of excellents etc. - I would argue this is a flaw in that particular process

You say "So maybe the annual process isn't the way to go, but we definitely need something." Which is the key issue IMO - how does one actually do it (ie, if you don't have PR, what's the alternative)?

I'm neither for nor agin them - like you, I've seen them done badly. But I've also seen them done well (on a few occasions). The best of them are done at least twice a year, with a clear process, training for the managers doing them, and a structured set of guidlines & definitions to support them.

Often, when I go into a new company & ask about this, managers will say they're not needed, 'everyone knows' how they're performing. When I ask the people, I almost never get the same response!

I haven't been at my current company long enough to see the whole process through, but from what I can tell, it's a good one.

At the beginning of the annual cycle, you develop a set of objectives for the year with your manager. These objectives get reviewed formally after 6 months and you get a status (or a change in objectives as necessary). They're formally reviewed again at the end of the cycle. I think raises are at least partly based on this, but I haven't made it that far yet.

Additionally (I don't know if this is a company wide thing or just our program), I have a somewhat informal "one on one" with my manager every month. It's an open forum for him to tell me what I'm doing well and where I can improve and for me to bring up any issues I may have. The result is I've got an open line of communication with my boss, and I get constant feedback on my performance so there are never any surprises. These meetings are tracked by top leadership in the program to make sure they're taking place, and they hold themselves to the same requirements - our Value Stream Leader has monthly one-on-one's with the directors under him too.

Some might say that monthly reviews are overkill, but I rather like them. They don't feel like a "review" so much as a checkup to make sure everything is ok. I like the frequent feedback, and it keeps me constantly in tune with my manager's expectations and on track to accomplishing my goals. This way (as long as my boss is honest), I can't be blindsided at the formal reviews where it really counts.

Great comments so far on a very important subject.

I hate performance reviews - almost all aspects of them. :mad: It's so easy to get them wrong, and doing so can cause a lot of damage.

In a turnaround group, perhaps people could instead run on short cycles based on team projects, and celebrate positive results in a more timely way than annual reviews. :2cents:

I agree!:agree1:

Many years ago, when I was still gainfully ;) employed as a supervisor, I was expected to conduct performance evaluations. I hated them with a passion! I did not like to do them, and I did not like to be subjected to it. The folks that I had to "evaluate" always expected this to part of "getting the expected yearly raise" process. The guy that had to evaluate me became by boss by accident (internal nasty politics) and used it to put me in my place.:whip: No, I do not have good memories...:nope:

Stijloor.

Great thread. A review of the posts so far mirrors my experience of the good and bad of performance appraisal / management / review. It's a bit like the quote from Alice in Wonderland (I think). "When they're good they're very, very good. When they're bad they're horrid!"

I had two reviews at the same company from two different managers. When I came out of the first I was motivated and had a spring in my step. When I came out of the second I was fuming. I ran a red light on my way home because I was still thinking about the meeting and, when I had calmed down, started to put together my exit plan.

The point is not that reviews can be good and bad. We are dealing with a normal distribution here. The process of clearly communicating plans, agreeing expectations and monitoring performance is valid. All we have to do is concentrate on reducing the variability of the process so that it becomes capable of satisfying the employee's tolerance band! :)

A little bit like 5.4.1 - 7.5.1 - 8.2.3, don't you think? :lol:

ie, if you don't have PR, what's the alternative)?

Wow, come on now, he hasn't been dead all that long!

I can't believe the ghost of Deming hasn't come up yet in this thread.

Point 12 is "Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective"

What is the alternative to performance review? A great boss/leader.
I had one once. He motivated people to achieve extraordinary results, and PR was not in his tool box, we all knew where things stood in real time.

:topic:
No Paul, 'twasn't him.

There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very good indeed,
But when she was bad she was horrid.

Originally, I believe, a nursery rhyme from Mother Goose.

I like the one attributed to Mae West though:
When I'm good, I'm very, very good. When I'm bad, I'm better.

Back on topic - yes, I agree with you!

What is the alternative to performance review? A great boss/leader.
I had one once. He motivated people to achieve extraordinary results, and PR was not in his tool box, we all knew where things stood in real time.

Wonderful - what is needed is to identify what it was that he was and did (or wasn't & didn't do) and build those into a system! Otherwise, one is presumably dependent on pure luck?

Soooo - let me see if I can summarize the thoughts of this thread so far (and I know this crowd will let me know if I get it wrong):

Most of us agree that an annual review process is not very effective if that is all there is
More frequent reviews are better with established objectives
Some believe that performance reviews are a detrimant to morale and actually drive the wrong behavior
Some believe that if managers were true leaders, there would be no need for such a process and performance would be coached on an ongoing, continuous basis.
OK - how'd I do? :bigwave:

Have to put the heating pad on my ankle - that's what I get for quitting smoking (wouldn't have started running:mad:)

Please continue to contribute as I intend to print off this entire string and share it with my COO and HR Mgr

Cheers - Pen

It doesn't matter how good a job you've done all year or what you've accomplished, it's usually the last 30 days that count.
They're usually personal, not based upon facts, so very subjective
Performance feedback should be happening on a continual basis. While it's never happened to me personally, several of my colleagues have walked into these reviews and gotten slammed for not meeting some unknown objective, or (as the author says) "your coworkers have come to me and said...." It's humiliating.
At Amoco your raise was tied to it. In the last couple of years I was there they started requiring managers to "force rank" their employees, they could only award a certain number of excellents etc. TO me, if all employees aren't performing, whose fault is that? The manager's! They should be coaching and guiding - and if the person is wrong for the job they should spare the employee the humiliation of sub-standard work and find the right job for them - or do them a favor and let them go...


My experience is that it depends 100% on your boss. Mistakes that I have seen include:

Setting SMART goals that are not Attainable except in the eyes of the boss
Having a pre-determined rating in mind regardless of the results actually attained and forcing the results to match the rating.
Forcing the results to match a forced ranking regardless of the actual performance. Only 5% can be rated high regardless of the fact that 2 out of 10 people (20%) in your department are highly effective.
You must have X developmental goals next year per company policy, ergo you obviously have X developmental needs (i.e., shortcomings) this year.
Rating everyone the same to avoid conflicts with the ones that actually need improvement.

Most of us agree that an annual review process is not very effective if that is all there is
More frequent reviews are better with established objectives
Some believe that performance reviews are a detriment to morale and actually drive the wrong behavior
Some believe that if managers were true leaders, there would be no need for such a process and performance would be coached on an ongoing, continuous basis.


Yes, I'd tend to agree, but I think you've left out the 'some believe that good PRs are helpful/worthwhile'.

One thing I think I omitted from my previous suggestions of contributing factors to it done well are: the 'review/feedback' system needs to be part of a functioning, healthy company culture. If the culture is broke, so will the review/feedback be (eg, there's not much point in espousing a 'people are our most important resource' viewpoint if all your actions as a company actually contradict this). Read Steve Simpson on UGRs - good stuff.

OK, allow me to throw in a few more references:


Jack Welch - very, very strong on the idea thing of getting the 'right' people; hard to argue with the results he got
Jim Collins' Good to Great identified 'First Who, then What' as a critical part of the foundation for building an enduring great company
Buckingham and Clifton have a lot of interesting things to say in Now, discover your strengths (manage by developing strengths, not focussing on weaknesses) and in First, Break all the rules discuss 'what the world's greatest managers do differently' (incl. how to define and manage for performance).


Finally, one large international company I worked with were very keen on Michael M Lombardo & Robert W Eichinger: the l Lominger system. And their people almost universally were pleased with the system. Not cheap apparently, but I remember being struck by an excellent book they had, which was very helpful in supporting the process, and providing really practical examples of how to improve. And oh yes, were they keen on objective (vs subjective) reviews!

[LIST]
Jack Welch - very, very strong on the idea thing of getting the 'right' people; hard to argue with the results he got


well, having worked at GE and knowing a lot of ex GE people I can say that corporate results are not necessarily tied to how perfromance was jusged and rewarded. It's a very stressful organization to work in. Basically the bottom X% just get cut and the powerpoint engineers get promoted, period. Your boss is the ONLY thing keeping you from the bottom x%. I know too many people who left and say it's like escaping from a prison camp or a loony bin. My friends who remain are in constant fear of losing their jobs. There is a strong track record of GE execs and mangers going to other companies who can't cut it in the real word - remember Home depot and Nardelli? Did he get good results from motivated talented people or was he ruthlessly good (Highly diversified prtfolio of businesses and #1 or #2 in your market or your gone) in a basically strong economy? He took care of his shareholders, but what about his employees?

You can't always beleive all of the business books that tout success. I remember reading a book on great places to work by a famous 'business prophet' and neither I nor anyone I worked with recognized the compnay he claimed to be our company...in fact after researching the issue we found that the author never set foot in the company, never talked to anyone below VP and got most of his 'data' from other articles.

One of the things I liked about "Good to Great" was that is was written like any other peer reviewed work. It disclosed it's research method and cited it's references...

You can't always beleive all of the business books that tout success....

One of the things I liked about "Good to Great" was that is was written like any other peer reviewed work. It disclosed it's research method and cited it's references...

Yes, I agree strongly.

You make good points about Jack Welch & GE - doesn't sound like a great experience on the inside.

I've worked for companies with the forced distribution in performance reviews - definitely not fun. I've also worked for a company that used a very detailed 1 thru 5 rating system, but applied it in an unusual manner - there were about 30 activities you were rated on and you could get a 5 in 29 of them and a 2 in 1 of them and you'd be rated a 2, not a 4.9. Of course, ratings also have to be 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 not an arithmetic average of the actual activity ratings. Again, not fun.

In general, many if not most people when rated on a set of activities or goals with the resulting rating (performance review) tied to a potential salary increase naturally concentrate on those activities or goals to the minimization or exclsuion of those activities that are not part of the set goals, and do not affect their personal remuneration. Even if the non-rated activities are more important to the organization and its long term success.

All you have to do is have an organization burn you once for not meeting or or exceding goals and ignore the extra effort in other areas that were not part of the original goals that had more effect on long term profitability than the goals not met. After that, at least for the organization in question you'll concentrate on the goals. You'll also be more wary with any future organizations to see if they follow a similar pattern before giving that extra 10 or 20% effort.

The performance reviews are not always the root of the problem. The problem lies people not knowing how to give reviews. I have only worked for one company that trained management on how to give reviews and it was a summer job at an amusement park.

I was once motivated to leave a company based on a performance review. It sounds strange but it was actually because of a good review. My boss told me I was doing a great job of getting along with my peers. It was at that point that I realized that I had given up arguing with anyone and had become complacent!

In my view it depends on where you work and the culture of the company.

I bet there's places that do it well... but I haven't worked for one.

Best experience was that they were somewhat accurate but didn't mean anything as far as compensation, bonus, or promotion.

Worst experience was that I got a great review with the only negative feedback was "you don't wear a tie often enough for a manager" and got canned two months later because the president "just didn't think I was a good fit anymore" and he'd been "dwelling on it for many months".

----------------------------------------
The only reason I support them in my current place is because it's easiest way to show our ISO auditor that we track competence.

For every quality auditor I've ever had the fastest, easiest answer to ISO9001 6.2.2 is "we have a periodic review process - here's the procedure".

If the purpose of a performance review was to help you become better trained, more efficient, more flexible etc., it would have some usefulness. As soon as you use it to determine pay raises, it loses its value for all the reasons given. In most medium and large companies, the performance review system is tied to a job pay system. Your raise is determined as much by where you are in the pay range for your job. If you are in the lower quartile of the pay range, even a mediocre rating can give you a larger raise than someone performing well but in the upper quartile of their pay range.

If the only conversation that you are having with your boss about whether you are getting the job done is at the end of the year performance review, your boss is the one who has performed poorly.

Bill Pflanz

If the purpose of a performance review was to help you become better trained, more efficient, more flexible etc., it would have some usefulness. As soon as you use it to determine pay raises, it loses its value for all the reasons given. In most medium and large companies, the performance review system is tied to a job pay system. Your raise is determined as much by where you are in the pay range for your job. If you are in the lower quartile of the pay range, even a mediocre rating can give you a larger raise than someone performing well but in the upper quartile of their pay range.

If the only conversation that you are having with your boss about whether you are getting the job done is at the end of the year performance review, your boss is the one who has performed poorly.
Bill PflanzAmen! Literally tens of thousands of employees are frustrated by bosses who perform poorly themselves, but have the power to decide the fate of their employees via a half-a$$ed "performance review".

Deming was quoted earlier in this thread - he basically said that performance appraisals were a waste of time.

My own experience mirrors that. Managers who don't take the time to understand your job and how you do it, have the annual power to pass judgement on limited facts. It too often becomes a game to be played.

Now I'm self employed, I continually review my performance and spend money and time on training to improve that performance. Self appraisal should work just as well in industry if the will was there. Does it? Any examples?

Now I'm self employed, I continually review my performance and spend money and time on training to improve that performance. Self appraisal should work just as well in industry if the will was there. Does it? Any examples?

Yes, I review my performance as well, and as with you I'm self-employed. But the money we spend is presumably the money we generate for ourselves. It belongs to the business.

It would take a high degree of trust for me to give an employee of mine the same opportunity to spend the company money because they deemed it a good idea.

I do agree 'self appraisal' is a laudable goal. But I'm not aware of it working out very well very often at all.

I also agree that appraisal is very often badly done.

But just because it's 'badly done' still doesn't necessarily mean that the answer is to ditch it entirely. Not too many people I know are entirely internally (self) directed and motivated and capable of accurate self-appraisal and honest self-reflection.

Perhaps the real question is, what are some optimal ways/means of assessing peoples' performance effectively and providing useful feedback in a work environment?

Because I contend that most people still want to know (unless they've been in the same position for yonks and already know) the answers to questions such as: Am I doing a 'good' job? Is my boss/superior pleased with my performance? Am I doing the things they want me to do in the right way? Do I need to improve somewhere: stop doing some things, start doing some others? Where?

Jane

Good points there - perhaps regarding performance appraisals as the 'root of all evil' is a bit glib. I think that the issue is WHO does the appraisal, WHEN and WHY

If appraisal is a way to manage pay increases, done by a boss that only speaks to you once a year and who is generally regarded as a dishonest organisational politician, then the feedback is worth little.

For me, timely feedback and advice from someone I respect and can learn from is worth a lot - but it can be as rare as hens teeth.

<SNIP>

Perhaps the real question is, what are some optimal ways/means of assessing peoples' performance effectively and providing useful feedback in a work environment?

<SNIP>

Typically, one of the banes of quality is that operators are reviewed by production people with little, no, or belittled information concerning the actual impact the person has had on quality. Typically, when quality personnel interact with operators, the operator may listen, but their reaction will "follow the money" - and there is no path through quality - it goes right through production. :cool:

Typically, one of the banes of quality is that operators are reviewed by production people with little, no, or belittled information concerning the actual impact the person has had on quality. Typically, when quality personnel interact with operators, the operator may listen, but their reaction will "follow the money" - and there is no path through quality - it goes right through production. :cool:

I don't have wide enough experience in the manufacturing world to know. (I have a ew manufacturing / product based customers but there this isn't true because the reviews were done by their direct supervisor who did know. I'm assuming what you mean by 'operators' is what we call 'blue collar workers/people on the (work)shop floor).

But assuming it is as you say, it sounds to me like

the quality system including its objectives and metrics aren't properly embedded into the business, and that's a MUCH bigger problem than just the review process and
this is yet another symptom and/or contributing cause to poor reviews


And the question still remains, how can performance be reviewed effectively and with value?

I think that the issue is WHO does the appraisal, WHEN and WHY

If appraisal is a way to manage pay increases, done by a boss that only speaks to you once a year and who is generally regarded as a dishonest organisational politician, then the feedback is worth little.

Totally agree. Absolutely!!

For me, timely feedback and advice from someone I respect and can learn from is worth a lot - but it can be as rare as hens teeth.


Ditto. How can we make it less rare?