Annual Anxiety: The Quest for the Ideal Performance Evaluation
Annual Anxiety: The Quest for the Ideal Performance Evaluation
By: Jennifer Jensen
November 1, 2001
Organizational Behavior -- Steve Lytle, professor
No matter who you are, you have likely had a negative experience with an annual review. The perceptions of the rater rarely match the perceptions of the ratee, and even when they do, both parties tend to doubt the efficacy and accuracy of such tools. Many times employees are left with an impression that their boss does not really know what they do, and the boss gets the idea that the employee did not hear the message he was attempting to convey. The problem lies less with the concept of performance evaluations: more than 90% of the employees at a company concerned about performance evaluation issues, indicated that they thought honest appraisal of their performance was critical to their success. Some 40% also felt they had never received such an appraisal--despite four-fifths of those employees having at least one signed review on file! The respondents were obviously not receiving what they needed from the documented reviews.
Based on the number of articles and books written on the subject, there is no lack of expert opinion. Experts tend to agree with employees that appraisals are important; the problem is none of them has the same opinion on what to do about it. The bottom line is employees want to know how they are doing, and their companies want to tell them. In a nutshell, the problem with most systems of performance evaluation is their failure to address more than a handful of specific traits the company deemed important at one time or another. The solution involves more than developing a new form, however. There are at least six factors that will lead a company to produce a system that works for employees, managers, and the company.
Performance--The first factor necessary in the quest for the ideal performance evaluation is that it must be exactly that: performance based. While this may seem simple and self-evident, there are many companies and managers who have lost wrongful termination lawsuits brought by former employees on just this oversight. Performance based evaluation is the cornerstone of effectively communicating to employees where they stand with the company. To evaluate an employee on performance 3 key elements must be in place first:
. Expectations--The employee must have a clear understanding of the expectations that he must meet. This can mean having a formal job description, or forming specific goals that must be attained in a certain time frame, or any combination of the two. Whatever the method, it is of the utmost importance that the employee constantly know exactly what 'performance' means for him.
2. Examples--The manager must document any instances of both exceptional performance and poor performance. This will give her an opportunity to provide tangible evidence to the employee when discussions begin, and to identify the achievements that should be reinforced, along with those areas that need improvement.
3. Examination--The manager and employee should meet on a regular consistent basis in order to review both of the above. Whether or not this is a formal review process each time, or an informal coaching session, this element will help foster the employee's willingness to work on issues, keep doing what he is doing well, and affirm that the employee and manager are still on the same page as far as the expectations are concerned. The meetings will also provide an opportunity for other issues and problems to be discussed. This type of dialogue strategy helps both parties to work together at their most effective.
Goals--The second factor necessary in the quest for the ideal performance evaluation is related to the first, but while this element can be a component of the performance requirements, it can also be a separately developed set of expectations. That is to say, the setting of goals is critical to the success of any performance evaluation. This area is one that is always challenging for managers and employees alike. The idea would be to develop goals, with the employees input, which align to the business strategy of the department, division, and company. In other words, while basing the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Goals--The second factor necessary in the quest for the ideal performance evaluation is related to the first, but while this element can be a component of the performance requirements, it can also be a separately developed set of expectations. That is to say, the setting of goals is critical to the success of any performance evaluation. This area is one that is always challenging for managers and employees alike. The idea would be to develop goals, with the employees input, which align to the business strategy of the department, division, and company. In other words, while basing the analysis of an employee on performance, and the expectations that have been delineated in the first factor, the employee should also have an opportunity to develop objectives for himself that directly or indirectly impact the greater good. To clarify, suppose that Jack is a software engineer. His performance (factor one) may be measured by his ability to develop software. The expectations and examples would be related to this general ability. Goals, on the other hand, could be set that raise the bar-- Jack's contribution is valuable only if he develops the right software application in a specific time frame. His goals could be related to quality, timeliness, and appropriateness. While the goals could be used to gauge his performance, the opposite is not true. It is not enough for Jack to be able to write code; he must also be able to do it well.
That being said, it is important that goals have the following 5 elements to be effective:
. Specific-- Goals must clearly specify the objective. It is not enough to say "Jack will write code." It is far better to say, "Jack will write code for the XYZ application..."
2. Measureable-- It does no good to set a goal if the end cannot be determined, or if there is no clear understanding of the goal being met. Again, if Jack's goal is "Jack will write 5 lines of code for the XYZ application, " that is far easier to measure if he has completed 5 v. 4 lines of code, than if he is only to write code.
3. Attainable-- This aspect is probably one of the most critical aspects of writing goals. If Jack is not a software engineer, but instead an assembly line worker, setting a goal for him to write 5 lines of code is useless. If a goal is not doable, it should not be written. The biggest difficulty with this is understanding that challenging is not the same as impossible. There is a delicate balance between creating challenging goals and creating ones that are unachievable.
4. Results Oriented--Goals should be designed so there is some expected result. In other words, Jack might be writing the 5 lines of code for this XYZ application in order to be able to incorporate that application into a larger system that must be delivered to a company. If there were no actual purpose in his achieving the goal it would not be to his advantage to set it , let alone go after.
5. Timely--This aspect of goal setting is one that defines the objective in terms of getting it done. Again, it does no good to set a goal with no time limit, and further setting a goal for five years out is fine if there is some flexibility to change it, but if an employee is working for set time frame (usually a year) before the goals come due, it may be more useful to focus on goals that are achieved in that span. For Jack this might mean his goal must be met in a three, six, or twelve month period.
Behaviors--Aside from identifying the performance issues, and developing goals, employees are usually expected to exhibit certain behaviors that categorize them as potential leaders. Behaviors can be learned, but they can also be difficult to classify. If an employee aggressively pushes a proposal, is that initiative or is it rude? Obviously, that depends on a number of circumstances. These can include company culture, the audience, the result, the behavior after the fact (if the proposal is rejected does the employee sulk?) Incorporating behaviors into a performance appraisal, then is certainly tricky. Many companies use a rating system that asks if an employee exhibits one behavior frequently, infrequently, or not at all. This is all well and good if the behavior is clearly defined--and the employee knows up front he is expected to exhibit it. At one company, a set of behaviors and there corresponding evidences is available to all employees, and at the onset of the year, the employee and his manager select several of these traits for the employee to work at exhibiting. In this way, both the evidence of the trait is set up in advance, and the employee is not overwhelmed with a laundry list of behaviors he must have perfected in a limited time. This approach is positive for both managers and employees: managers can direct an employee to work on a behavior that needs improvement, employees can move toward being an even more valuable employee by working to achieve an extra component to his competency.
Feedback--Another factor in building the ideal performance evaluation is feedback. Not only feedback from the manager, but feedback from colleagues and customers. An issue for many employees is the idea that they get "jumped" in annual reviews, because a manager has some problem or issue that has been sitting on her desk for months, and never bothered to bring it to the employee's attention. This can be a strong de-motivator, especially if the employee has no idea this issue has been lying in wait for them. Often employees have wide blind spots when it comes to examining their own performance and behaviors. Regular feedback from all those who interact with that employee on a regular basis can be a tool that may not necessarily require the manager's involvement. If the employee is encouraged to solicit and elicit feedback from his co-workers on a regular basis, and the impetus is placed firmly on his shoulders, it may only be necessary for the manager to be involved at the feedback sessions that are actually scheduled with the employee and herself. The feedback sessions that are conducted with the employee and the manager should focus on the performance issues, goal status, and behavior updates. If the employee wishes to share the feedback received from his colleagues, it is his choice, but the manager should not expect it. The feedback that the employee receives should be used by the employee to develop his own thoughts on improving these other perceptions. In many companies, the manager may not have an opportunity on a daily basis to examine the outputs or work habits of the employee, and the employee, as noted before, may be unaware that there are any issues. It is important to note that feedback from colleagues should be reciprocal. One employee should not be led to the slaughter as it were, without being allowed to return the favor. This should help avoid a situation wherein an employee is crucified. The confidential nature of this feedback should also be honored, to the point that a certain level of trust between the parties can be established, and honest exchange of information occurs. Employees should be trained in how to accept and give this type of feedback, in order to improve its effectiveness.
Training--Which leads naturally to the next factor in the quest for the ideal performance evaluation. Training is so critical, both for the employees and the managers. Training should be considered a part of the package--a performance evaluation is not ideal until everyone not only knows how to use it, but can teach someone else how to use it, and it is used well by everyone. The first four factors in the quest for the ideal performance evaluation all deal with the pieces of the pie. Training is critical to understanding the recipe for building the pie. Training should be continuous. It should not be a presentation given once by human resources when the program is implemented, and then forgotten about. As a component of the use of any performance evaluation, completed reviews should be examined on a regular basis by another level of management and human resources personnel to insure that they are being used properly and conducted consistently. A manager who is identified as being unclear on some aspect of the process should be approached and personally trained further, perhaps as an aspect of his own performance evaluation! Insofar as it is possible, every manager should be expected to attend some sort of refresher course on how to conduct the performance appraisal process on a regular basis (whether it be annual or every other year.)
Continuous Improvement--Just as no company will ever declare that they have 'finished' their business (unless they are going out of business!), no company should consider their quest for the ideal performance evaluation a finite process. Just as a company must be ready to adapt to the business climate it finds itself in, so to must that same company be prepared to adjust their evaluation practices and process to the time and place of its use. This might mean refining the process to incorporate new hires differently, or developing a method of comparison for employees. It might mean changing the tool that it is used to collect the information, or defining new behaviors from one year to the next. The commitment of the company must be only this: if it can be better, it should be.
In the final analysis, a performance evaluation can and should be a strategic tool that is used to positively impact employees to improve their performance and guide the company toward the development of the best employees. Without some type of process in place to capture the actual performance of an employee, it is virtually impossible to determine termination or layoff strategies, allocate promotions, or fairly give merit increases without understanding who is on the top of the heap and who is buried in the pile. The perception that performance evaluations are time consuming, de-motivating, and ineffectual can only be eradicated by a company commitment to the quest for the ideal performance evaluation. That quest must be understood and communicated to all of the employees and managers as an essential key to doing business in today's market. As companies shift the focus away from an annual accounting on the aptitude/ineptitude balance sheet, to a performance driven, goal oriented, behavior focused, well understood, quest for the improvement of employees, managers and employees alike will come to the conclusion that the ideal performance evaluation does exist--and they are fortunate enough to work for a company that not only understands the concept, but drives the process to fruition. The daily benefit of creating an environment where good performance is honored, and poor performance is eliminated, is the model that both employees and employers strive to achieve. Every person seeks to be valued for their contribution. The quest for the ideal performance evaluation is the means by which a company can recognize and appreciate that contribution.
Bibliography
Flynn, Gillian, "Getting Performance Reviews Right", Workforce, May 2001, pages 76 - 78
Flynn, Peter, "'You Are Simply Average'", Across the Board, March/April 2001, pages 51 - 55
Grensing-Pophal, Lin, "Motivate Managers to Review Performance, HRMagazine, March 2001, pages 44 - 48
Joinson, Carla, "Making Sure Employees Measure Up", HRMagazine, March 2001, pages 36 - 41
Kinicki, Angelo and Kreitner, Robert, Organizational Behavior, (New York: McGraw Hill, 2001)
Messmer, Max, "Performance Reviews", Strategic Finance Magazine, December 2000, pages 10 - 12
Pekala, Nancy, "Employee Reviews -- Perform at Your Own Risk", Journal of Property Management, September/October 2000, page 16
Searle, John G., Manage People, Not Personnel: Motivation and Performance Appraisal, (Boston: Harvard Business Review, 1990)
Smither, James W., Performance Appraisal, State of the Art in Practice, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998)
The Ideal Performance Evaluation
Annual Anxiety Jennifer Jensen
Page: 3
