3 reasons performance reviews fail – and how to avoid ‘em
July 23, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Assessing the right candidate, Salary negotiations, Special Report
When done properly, performance reviews will motive employees to do their jobs better and give them a concrete idea of how to do that. But too many managers fail to give the process the attention it deserves.
The majority of employees (57%) say they’ve never had a useful performance review, according to a survey by Harris Interactive. Those employees report their performance reviews have done little to motivate them or help them improve their work.
So what’s wrong? Here are the three most common mistakes managers make that limit the value of employee assessments:
1. Missing a key motivator
What do employees want out of their reviews? Aside from a raise, the main thing employees want to know is what career path they’re on, says consultant Laura Ford, speaking at the Society for Human Resources Management Annual Conference in New Orleans.
But one thing many reviews are missing is a discussion of what advancement opportunities may be available in the near future, and what the employee needs to do to make it happen.
2. Not going the distance
Too often, reviews for well-performing employees congratulate them on what they’ve accomplished and let the story end there. For example:
An employee meets a predetermined goal of boosting production by 10%. Her manager writes in her review: “Your production was lifted by 10% and you’ve met your goal.”
While that’s true, wording it that way makes it sound like she’s reached the end of the line. Instead, the manager should say: “You lifted production by 10%, which is a great accomplishment. You should continue the progress and try to reach 15% — or even higher — next year.”
That congratulates the employee on a job well done, while reinforcing the fact that there’s always room to move forward.
3. Failing to properly separate performance and pay discussions
Reviews are generally intertwined with a talk about salary. But raises should always be the last thing the manager talks about.
If pay comes up before the review is fully completed, it’s more likely employees will start arguing about the assessment instead of taking responsibility for their work. When the review is completed first, employees are more receptive to the manager’s critique.
Tags: motivation, performance review, raises
July 24th, 2009 at 8:09 am
Thanks for the good suggestions re: performance reviews. I’m always looking for ways to improve our review process and get the most out of it for both the employee and the employer. Can provide samples of performance review forms for technical employees as well as for support staff.
July 24th, 2009 at 9:34 am
I think we’re missing it here. I most definitely agree that “too many managers fail to give the process the attention it deserves” and I believe it stems from the fact that they do not realize just how very important this is to them as a leader of an organization and their employees. We must understand that the Performance Review is just one element of the entire Process. It’s more than a process – it is part of the Performance Management System. This system is comprised of three (3) Sub Systems – (1) Goals and Objectives – (2) Measurement and (3) Reward / Consequences
All three must be present to really have an effective Performance Management System. The Performance Management System is the single most important system in the business. It defines the business goals in terms of deliverables and should contain all the elements the Business expects – Cost, Quantity, Quality, Customer Satisfaction. These should be defined in the Goals and Objectives portion of the system (and any organization – manufacturing, service, etc..have the same Business goals – let me know if you need an example) –
Hopefully what I’m going to say is a Breakthrough in our thinking and how we approach performance management – addressing #2 above. When GOALS and OBJECTIVES are generated by the manager – what you see on paper is the. When you meet a goal you meet a goal – you do not exceed the goal. Most times it’s a guestimate of what exceeding looks like. In my mind (and what also should be in the mind of the manager)The objective should contain 4 elements – using the example above – raise production by 10% and you meet the goal. Raise production by 15% and you exceed the goal and if you raise production by 20% you far exceed the goal. Now the employee is clear on what they have to do to achieve a certain rating for that objective.
By the way – the performance review should be a formality, in that, the manager and employee should have been conducting “progress to goals” discussions regularly thoughout the year and the written review is merely a document that reflects / summarizes results.
Skipping to the third element – Pay —- your merit increase should be based upon your performance rating /level of contribution. I’m not sure why there would be any discussion about pay before the review is completed as suggested above ???
I’m not in agreement with #1 – Missing a Key Motivator. I don’t think that Career Development should be a part of the Performance Review Process. Career Development is another discussion and different process (Position Competency Requirements vs current employee compentencies). Performance Review should deal with your current job and the skills, knowledge, and abilities required (and those that need to be developed) to better your performance in your Current Job.