BNET Business Network is running a poll: “What’s wrong with [tag]performance reviews[/tag]?” Current statistics as of today:
- Managers should be giving feedback on a regular basis, not just annually. (40%)
- It’s a completely subjective process masquerading as an objective one. (34%)
- It’s not an effective way to develop your workers. (12%)
- The process is too bureaucratic (5%)
- They’re too time-consuming for the manager. (3%)
- The timing. There’s too much else going on at the end of the year. (2%)
- None of these. I’ll tell you in the comments. (3%)
More than 85% of respondents say that performance reviews are broken (yes, I realize this is not a scientific poll, but it sure is good data!). Almost one-half (46%) of these respondents say the process is not just broken, but should be trashed. Okay, I’m making an interpretation there, but when they say that it is “a completely subjective process masquerading as an objective one” and it’s “not effective” that tells me they put no trust in it. I think that word “masquerading” is a give-away.
Having been in corporate [tag]human resources[/tag] for over 18 years, I have seen many different types of performance review programs. I’ve done my best to improve the process. I’ve worked with employees who felt they didn’t get a fair review. I’ve worked with managers who believed they did the best they could for an employee. Almost everyone thought there was a problem with it. BUT, everyone agreed that you need some way to measure and manage performance.
One problem is too many companies require a distribution of [tag]performance rating[/tag] (whether “forced” or “implied”). This forces managers to make calls they don’t want to regarding performance, or can’t. I got fed up with this practice and started telling managers that I worked with to do the best they could with the review based on the information and data they had and give whatever ratings they believed were merited regardless of the corporate requirements.
Some of the managers didn’t believe me. Others applauded. I told both of them that I would stand next to them and defend the decision as long as we could base it on good solid performance data. Some were strong enough to follow through. But others either wouldn’t do it, or didn’t have enough solid performance data to work from.
Why am I not surprised that so many people don’t like performance reviews?
What do you think?
Recent Comments