Adding Value to Performance Reviews

Thank you for your visit.

This page and site has been moved to TalkingStory.org

NEW LINK: Adding Value to Performance Reviews

Comments

[Lisa Haneberg]

Rosa - You know that I am on the same page with you! And that's good advice for how to optimize the situation.

It is frustrating that more companies don't have the courage to follow what their gut is saying and get rid of these counterproductive practices.

[Rick Fuqua]

Rose, I sincerely appreciate the thorough response.

I will review and attempt to work these new ideas into my process this year.

In some ways, I’m part of the problem as I am stuck on many of the old way of doing things. I find it hard to not illustrate areas of weakness in a performance review as I attempt to get an employee to "do better next year". This is old thinking and I will definitely be incorporating kūlia i ka nu`u into my new methods. I could go into a two hour rant on the various performance review, goal setting and compensation processes I have been involved with over the years. Not surprisingly, they all try to boil us down to a number. I’ve seen 10’s and 1’s and 5’s and everything in between, but rarely have I ever focused on an employee's true potential. Reviews seem to always be about the past not the future.

Hmmm...

PS: Lisa - I just received a copy of HIMM. I look forward to a good read.

[Rick Fuqua]

I hope "Rose" is considered an endearing short form of "Rosa", kind of like "Rick" is to "Richard".

Sorry for the mistype.

[Steve Sherlock]

Rosa, you certainly catch attention when you say toss out the annual reviews and job descriptions but there must be a better way than to "throw the baby out with the bath water".

Your "go for added value" comments are right on. We (as managers) need to focus using the tool to have a healthy and honest discussion regularly (and not just ONCE a year) to ensure that there is progress and accomplishment.

[Wayne Hurlbert]

Employee performance reviews have a number of glaring weaknesses, in my opinion. By concentrating on the weak areaa of an employee's performance, they do several things that are counterproductive.

Reviews deflate the employee's ego and self esteem, and only remind them of their shortcomings, which may not even be all that important to their overall job performance. The problem areas are usually inflated all out of proportion to the value they would achieve, even if given the "highest rating". The strengths of the employee may be more valuable on the job than any loss resulting from the alleged weakness. For example, a great sales rep may never file the paperwork in a timely manner. The person is too busy closing and adding revenue to the company.

The lack of focus on the strengths also subconsciously demeans the importance of what the staff member does well. After all, if all the evaluator considers important are the negative aspects of the review, then the impression is left that the strong areas are indeed less important. Again, we have a negative impact on the employee.

Reviews are all about the past tense. They are a snapshot of last year's newspaper headlines. We all know how outdated and wrong many of those relics can be in the real world. The focus on what has essentially taken place in history disregards the person's ability to grow and learn on the job. 80% of the job is learned in 20% of the time. That final 20% of the learning curve remains in the future, allowing for personal growth and Rosa's term of added value. The future, personal and professional growth, and value added for the organization should be the focus.

The traditional job evaluation format requires some serious reevaluation itself.