Let's Trash Employee Performance Reviews :: Managing POWER

Comments (6) for Let's Trash Employee Performance Reviews

J. Edward Deming categorized the pay for performance process as a "deadly corporate disease." He was right. The problem is that it always has inherent quotas with little to no correlation to actual performance. It is amazing that the callousness and naivety of corporate morons allows this process to perpetuate. Most recently, the Department of Defense fell on its face with an ill-fated attempt to make things better. There is an antidote to this deadly disease - stop shoving it up the posteriors of hard working employees in the name of continuous improvement. If you can get by the corporate facades, one will find that there is not one company which can truthfully say that a pay for performance system works in a constructive, effective manner; just ask the employees. "Bovine excrement" is an appropriate description for the overall substance and effect of this malpractice!

Posted by Don Drumm on Monday, April 27, 2009 @ 04:27 PM

Having conducted numerous performance appraisals for both union and professional personnel (as well as having been on the receiving end), I agree with the author. The value is marginal, at best, and more often than not highly destructive. Appears in many instances to be nothing more than simply satisfying a requirement from HR. Just plain dumb.

Scrap the qualitative crap and concentrate on the important that can be fairly “kicked-and-counted”. Those who help meet the target get rewarded in proportion to their efforts. Those who do not help much do not get much. Those who do not help are replaced.

Posted by Mike Keller on Monday, April 27, 2009 @ 04:31 PM

I ran an electrical maintenance department at a major Canadian steel mill for thirty -five years. One of the main challenges was in encouraging people to continually upgrade their technical skills to keep up with continually changing technology. I wanted my department to be community of learning. The employee performance review was one of the tools I used to achieve this goal. The number one rule was that a person had to feel better about themselves when they left the review meeting along with a plan for improvement if it was required. I offered additional in house tutoring to achieve their goals, but not learning was not an option if they wanted to work in my department. People were given written technical assignments for pay advances and I often came in on my day off to help them if they were struggling. All of this might sound archaic today but at the risk of sounding immodest, my department was continually rated as the best in of what at that time was a company of 13000 people. I kicked a lot of ass too but never fired one single person during those thirty -five years. I loved my job and I loved my people.

Posted by Aldo Bisci on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 @ 02:39 AM

This is just another example of a wannabe trying to sell their book—this time by dressing the standard management blather in the inevitable tension arising between management and labor during an economic downturn. Oh, somebody just hand me the Kool-Aid.

Posted by Noah Bodie on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 @ 07:23 AM

At Royal and Sun Alliance, a boiler insurer in Canada, we had the "scorecard" which was an ongoing process where you could make futile attempts to meet or try to exceed ever-changing expectations in hopes of getting a good review. It was a "living document," I was told. This meant that that what you did one year had no bearing the next as the requirements were always changing. You never knew what they would want from year to year. It was like a movable net in hockey, or a changing goal line. You could come close to meeting expectations but exceed them? forget it! An ax was always waiting to fall if you did not satisfy the changing bull**** that the scorecard required. The entire system was designed that you could never exceed expectations, and even if you did, it did not matter. I asked my boss at a meeting "What would happen if we all exceeded expectations in a system designed so you could never do it? What would happen? It's like waiting for Godot, or for the messiah to come, or theLeafs to win the Stanley Cup." He had no answer and I was let go not long after. A happy day! I would rather work for Macdonalds than undergo another performance review. Or work for Royal and Sun Alliance for that matter.

Posted by Larry A. Lewis on Thursday, May 7, 2009 @ 06:51 PM

Very few are constructive unfortunately. I have found those which are constructive can be helpful in the re-alignment of goals and performance. An analysis based on facts (NOT ambiguous or subjective data) is most useful. The problem here is getting data that actually reflects performance - not just the perception of performance. However, the time spent to capture actual data can be extensive and the return minimal.
Additonaly, the evaluation must include some form of two way communication - not an employee taking criticism.

The best manager will monitor performance continuosly, and provide appropriate guidance as needed. As for adjustment of compensation, that should be negotiated on a case by case basis. The hard working agressive employee will naturally earn more whereas the passive lower performer will settle for less.

Posted by Frank Stannard on Thursday, May 14, 2009 @ 02:48 PM

Let's Trash Employee Performance Reviews

Negative Reviews

What is RSS?

How do I access RSS?

Subscribe to Managing Power