- 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!