Home > Jobs & Careers > Managing Your Career > Employment Law
Should employee performance reviews be abolished?
Results so far:
| Yes | 31% | 203 votes | Total: 653 votes | |
| No | 69% | 450 votes |
Yes
by Gerhard Adam
Created on: December 14, 2008
Initially many people will respond with a positive answer to this question, because they presume that this is how one is recognized and achieves rewards. However, when examining this a bit closer, it raises several important concerns that also bear some consideration.
One of the most obvious problems is whether the individual doing the review is actually capable of assessing the quality of work done by an employee. In many cases, a manager may lack the expertise to make a competent assessment, or more often than not, actually doesn't have any real criteria to use to make such an assessment. As a result, we find that many managers will use arbitrary deadlines for assessing work, despite the fact that there is no business reason for the deadline. This simply becomes a performance metric that can help a manager justify an evaluation.
In truth, the role of the performance review is to provide a legal framework to avoid liabilities within a company so that promotions and discipline are documented within the corporate policy because most managers also don't have the authority to actually "manage" the people they are in charge of. In many cases, a bad review cannot be effectively countered because the manager is the final determining factor in how it will be presented. While an employee may have the opportunity to protest a review with additional written statements, the sad reality is that those comments will never be examined or considered and the only thing reflected in an employee's record will be the bad review.
A manager that doesn't know whether his staff is good or bad is simply inept. Any manager that doesn't know how his people are performing their tasks should be removed.
I've heard all the excuses about why this can be difficult, but these explanations are irrelevant since a manager's job is, by definition, to manage his people. Therefore when he doesn't know them, he doesn't know his job or how to deliver on what he is to be managing.
Another problem with performance reviews, is that they need to work in both directions, so that all employees are reviewed by those they regularly interact with. At present it is typically conducted as a "top-down" mechanism despite the fact that the person doing the reviewing is not the employer. This individual is also only an employee, so instead of promoting improved performance by an honest assessment of interactions and how they might be improved. The performance review becomes a thinly veiled rationalization for justifying a pay increase (or not as the case may be) which in many cases has already been pre-determined by budget considerations and not performance.
Basically it is my contention that performance reviews should be eliminated so that management cannot use them as a crutch to avoid knowing their employees. If a manager truly needs such a device to determine whether someone is good or bad at their job, then perhaps it is the manager that is incompetent, rather than the people supposedly being reviewed.
Learn more about this author, Gerhard Adam.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Michelle Tuesday
Created on: March 08, 2009
If you have ever written a performance review, you know how time-consuming they are, and how difficult they can be to deliver to employees. If you have ever received an evaluation that made you seethe, cringe, or cry, it may be tempting to write reviews off as painful and unnecessary. So, should employee performance reviews be abolished?
Feedback is an important motivator for so many reasons. Poor performers need to know not only that they are not meeting expectations, but also how to improve. Good performers need to know that their efforts to meet expectations are noticed and appreciated. Likewise, employees need to know that their peers are being held accountable to the same standards that they are expected to meet. Performance reviews are necessary for ensuring that essential feedback occurs.
Performance reviews also have legal implications. In many cases, they are used to determine annual merit increases, so the documentation serves to support that managers doled out raises in a fair manner, based on performance. If a woman, minority, or other member of a legally protected class discovers she earned a lower percentage increase than a colleague and decides to sue, the employer had better be able to produce documented evidence that her performance warranted the increase she received. Similarly, if an employee is terminated or passed up for promotion based on performance, a documented performance history showing that the employee not only failed to meet expectations, but was also made aware of the failure and given opportunity to improve, is the employer's legal protection.
So, what can be done to make the performance review process less painful and more meaningful?
Documenta tion is the key. A manager who keeps good notes all year long will be able to draft a review with more impact. Generic statements like, "Suzie is a real team player," are nice, but really do not tell the employee much. How was Suzie a good team player in the last year? A review should include an example or two that demonstrates how she went to bat for a colleague or met a particularly critical output goal because of good coordination. This shows the employee that her manager was paying attention and makes her feel appreciated for her efforts. She will look for more opportunities to impress her boss.
Solid documentation serves to support constructive feedback, too. When Bob hears that he needs to work on his adaptability, he will justifiably want to know when he failed to be adaptable. If his manager can point to the time he resisted a request to switch projects due to a changing business need, he will see not only that his performance could have been detrimental to meeting department goals, but also what to watch for and improve on in the future.
All of that said, a performance review should not be the first time an employee hears she is a good team player, or that he needs to be more adaptable to changing needs. Regular performance feedback is critical to not only meeting the demands of the business, but also making employees feel valued. Managers should give performance feedback as often as possible, but they have work tasks of their own, above and beyond coaching and developing employees. The formal performance review process is a way to ensure that feedback happens on a routine basis.
Abolishing employee performance reviews is a bad idea for many reasons. Though they are time consuming to write and often difficult to deliver and receive, managers should be held accountable for the development of the employees reporting to them. The company deserves the legal protection afforded by documented performance, and employees deserve regular feedback to know how to continuously improve, and to feel appreciated by their employers.
Learn more about this author, Michelle Tuesday.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley