The Biggest Obstacle of Personnel Performance Reviews?

[JaneB]

There's much debate in the HR world about the value of performance reviews (for & against), and the 'best' way to do them and the optimum frequency. THen there's also much debate about whether the perf. review should or shouldnot be coupled with salary review.

My own view is: Feedback is essential. (Are we both on the same page, in terms of am I doing what you think is important or not? If so, how well). The closer to the time it comes, the better. The better companies do them at least twice a year - once is usually too infrequent.

Good practice perf. reviews are supposed to be two-way! ANything where info just travels in one direction there simply isn't any real 'communication' going on.

One argument for having some kind of formal performance reviews is that if it isn't scheduled & planned for, it tends not to happen. Managers 'mean to' get around to it, and don't. And there won't be any record of it. If it causes two people to sit down and have a real conversation about meaningful things, with some kind of meaningful outcome, it'll be valuable. If it doesn't, it won't.

I don't think the Q is should we do performance reviews? I think the question is more along the lines of: how can we engage with this idea of performance and competence, and have a dynamic, useful and constructive method of handling it, including clear, useful and prompt feedback, and oppoortunities for discussions and meaningful dialogue, and including ways of responding to performance that is less than acceptable ... and how can we demonstrate that in a way that makes sense in our org?

 

[Jim Wynne]

One argument for having some kind of formal performance reviews is that if it isn't scheduled & planned for, it tends not to happen. Managers 'mean to' get around to it, and don't. And there won't be any record of it. If it causes two people to sit down and have a real conversation about meaningful things, with some kind of meaningful outcome, it'll be valuable. If it doesn't, it won't.

This sort of sums up my displeasure with the way that HR issues are handled in general, which is usually not the complete fault of HR professionals. Problems tend to be addressed by making blanket do-this-don't-do-that rules, rather than dealing with the actual causes. If managers need a rule that establishes dates or deadlines for performance reviews, it's because priorities haven't been adequately established, and setting dates and intervals isn't likely to help. It's another case where root cause analysis and problem prevention are considered important only in production.

 

[JaneB]

This sort of sums up my displeasure with the way that HR issues are handled in general, which is usually not the complete fault of HR professionals. Problems tend to be addressed by making blanket do-this-don't-do-that rules, rather than dealing with the actual causes.

You're leaping to a conclusion here which isn't reasonable and on very thin grounding. I deliberately said 'some kind of formal performance review' and equally deliberately was not any more prescriptive than that. I fail to see how you can interpret this as arguing for "blanket do-this-don't-do-that rules".
To the contrary, I don't argue for such things. At all.

If managers need a rule that establishes dates or deadlines for performance reviews, it's because priorities haven't been adequately established, and setting dates and intervals isn't likely to help.

There's some merit in what you say here in terms of priorities not established, or perhaps there are conflicting ones. But leaping from that to dates and intervals don't help... drawing a long bow there, I think.

It's another case where root cause analysis and problem prevention are considered important only in production.

??? Where, oh where, did you come up with this? What are you talking about??? Because it's completely untrue in the world I operate in or with the organisations I see and work with.

 

[Jim Wynne]

You're leaping to a conclusion here which isn't reasonable and on very thin grounding. I deliberately said 'some kind of formal performance review' and equally deliberately was not any more prescriptive than that. I fail to see how you can interpret this as arguing for "blanket do-this-don't-do-that rules".
To the contrary, I don't argue for such things. At all.

I didn't say you did. I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. In fact, if you look at the bottom of the post I was responding to, you'll see a "thanks" from me. I was just making an observation, that's all.

 

[JaneB]

I didn't say you did. I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. In fact, if you look at the bottom of the post I was responding to, you'll see a "thanks" from me. I was just making an observation, that's all.

Oops, sorry Jim. I obviously misinterpreted what you wrote - I just got the email in my inbox with my quote and what I thought was your response. I didn't see your Thanks (for which I thank you) and I certainly didn't understand what you wrote immediately under the quote you took from my email as supporting it. Very happy to be mistaken & thank you for the correction.

 

[JaneB]

Going back to the topic question... I suspect that the biggest obstacle of performance review is people not being good at it, and avoiding it.

Many (most?) managers find the whole 'people' thing a challenge. Men often more so, and perhaps (going out on a big limb here) even more pronounced in the traditionally male engineering/science and the like disciplines. Managers are generally exceedingly uncomfortable at 'managing performance' - find it difficult to give accurate, clear feedback. Perhaps easier to say 'you did a great job'. Often find it almost impossible or difficult to say 'you're not doing X or Y the way I'd like it done'.

They often avoid doing it IMO. It's very rarely given the importance it deserves. And all too often, there's no training or coaching given in how to do it and do it well.

 

[Helmut Jilling]

I'd like to test a theory.
I've noticed that personnel performance reviews/appraisals are notoriously late or missing. I realize that its not everyone's favorite topic but it really shouldn't be as difficult as I'm seeing in this case.
Looking back over some past write-ups, I noticed that they often end with a statement such as... "I therefore recommend Jane Doe for a salary increase". Is it just me or is it common belief that performance reviews are tightly coupled to salary reviews? I established a review form used to capture performance metrics and identify training, etc. and nowhere does it mention salary.
I believe this could be one reason why they're not being done regularly, since the CEO and owner of the company is not comfortable increasing everyone's salary each year, and to conclude that no salary increase is recommended would be bad for morale.

In a moment of euphoria, I thought I'd found the root cause of the lack of performance reviews and with a bit of education could separate performance reviews from salary reviews in people's minds, could it be so?

In the past, most have been notoriously poor, which is probably why Deming opposed them. Nowadays, I see a fair number of pretty good ones. Still, much room for improvement.

Like anything else, if done well, they can be useful. If done poorly, they are worse than worthless.

• There needs to be a good system for doing them, with menaingful checksheets to guide the process.
• And, the people performing them need some trianing on how to make them meaningful.

 

[ScottK]

Many (most?) managers find the whole 'people' thing a challenge.

Boy, that's the truth.
I'm the only manager in this place the walks around and says "good morning, how are you today" to everyone in my department, and the other departments I pass through for that matter, when I get in.

The other managers cruise right through, plunk down at their desks, and start issuing orders.
I shake hands, bump knuckles, pat shoulders, etc. with people as I walk around. I've never seen the production manager even pat a worker on the shoulder and ask "how's things?"

I guess they're "above" being friendly with the help.

and - if you don't interact with people how can you really judge performance?

 

[Stijloor]

if you don't interact with people how can you really judge performance?

Scott,

This is very refreshing to read how you do this.

In another post (about Layered Process Audits), I make a case for MBWA.
That's what you practice. Keep up the good work!

Stijloor.

 

[somerqc]

Scott,

I hear you there!

When I left my last place of employment, I had numerous personnel thank me for treating them respectfully by saying "good morning", "How are you?", "Are you ok?" when I saw them not looking so well, "How did your team do last night?" during whatever season it was....etc.

I still would discipline where required; however, I found it much easier to manage and deal with issues my using these techniques than the "Old YELLer" technique. In fact, this "soft" approach was supported by top management and the owner.

As an example, I happened to run into the owner at a local restaurant. He was in a hurry so just waved hello. On the Monday, he came to my office to say sorry for not stopping to say hello and meet my wife (I was newly married at the time). He was the same with everyone regardless of position.

Unfortunately, the business was sold due to the fact that the market was dominated by Chinese made products and local production could not compete (also the reason I left).