You can call me “dense,” you can call me “iconoclastic,” but I see nothing constructive about an annual pay and performance review. It’s a mainstream practice that has baffled me for years.
To my way of thinking, a one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It’s a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work. Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications and teamwork.
Failing Grade
- The Promise: Performance reviews are supposed to provide an objective evaluation that helps determine pay and lets employees know where they can do better.
- The Problems: That’s not most people’s experience with performance reviews. Inevitably reviews are political and subjective, and create schisms in boss-employee relationships. The link between pay and performance is tenuous at best. And the notion of objectivity is absurd; people who switch jobs often get much different evaluations from their new bosses.
- The Solution: Performance previews instead of reviews. In contrast to one-side-accountable reviews, performance previews are reciprocally accountable discussions about how boss and employee are going to work together even more effectively than they did in the past. Previews weld fates together. The boss’s skin is now in the game.
The alleged primary purpose of performance reviews is to enlighten subordinates about what they should be doing better or differently. But I see the primary purpose quite differently. I see it as intimidation aimed at preserving the boss’s authority and power advantage. Such intimidation is unnecessary, though: The boss has the power with or without the performance review.
And yes, I have an alternative in mind that will get people and corporations a great deal more of what they actually need.
To make my case, I offer seven reasons why I find performance reviews ill-advised and bogus.
TWO PEOPLE, TWO MIND-SETS
Let’s start with an obvious reason: The mind-sets held by the two participants in a performance review work at cross-purposes. The boss wants to discuss where performance needs to be improved, while the subordinate is focused on such small issues as compensation, job progression and career advancement. The boss is thinking about missed opportunities, skill limitations and relationships that could use enhancing, while the subordinate wants to put a best foot forward believing he or she is negotiating pay. All of this puts the participants at odds, talking past each other. At best, the discussion accomplishes nothing.
Get Premium Already a Premium Subscriber? Sign In
Purchase
Buy this article
Purchase one or more copies as a PDF
Copyright © Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1977-2011. All rights reserved.
Great thoughts! I have been in two specific reviews that were ‘early’ annual reviews because of some issues. One of those was when I called out a superior then three days later I was having a review 3 months early. Where I saw no value in these was that little areas that I overlooked should have been brought to me immediately and my superior been there for accountability. Instead they let months and months go by without me realizing my own areas of weakness. I dod not feel the adequate teamwork. However your approach brings so much balance to the desired ‘team’ that most organizations want… at least say they want.
I view the performance review as very important, and not distasteful. It benefits both “sides.” The company can ensure that they are getting what they have paid for in labor, skill, or talent, and the employee gets an insight on how their work is perceived by management over a period of time. Of course, the most important part here is to maximize the opportunity and open up a communication channel with the employee: be fair and concise, discuss what was done well, what must be improved, and outline clear, attainable, and measurable goals for the coming period.