Forums
Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
General Forum
Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
Discuss workforce management, performance management, retention, communication, motivation, contributing to business results and other topics.
Greetings,
I'm working on a story about performance appraisals and their effectiveness and would like to hear your thoughts on the topic.
Perhaps some of you have read Samuel Culbert's 2008 WSJ
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId53
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId53Discussion:DiscussionId36947
Forums » Topic Forums » General Forum » Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
|
Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
posted at 3/23/2011 12:29 PM EDT
|
Posts: 3
First: 11/12/2010 Last: 3/25/2011 |
Greetings,
I'm working on a story about performance appraisals and their effectiveness and would like to hear your thoughts on the topic. Perhaps some of you have read Samuel Culbert's 2008 WSJ op-ed where he calls performance reviews the prime cause of low morale at work and describes their main purpose as intimidation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122426318874844933.html Several readers posted comments on getting rid of performance reviews in another thread. I'd love to hear your views. Thanks. |
|
|
Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
posted at 3/23/2011 1:01 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 562
First: 11/12/2009 Last: 9/14/2011 |
IMO, Culbert's opinions reek of uninformed academic nonsense which reflect no realistic appreciation of management in a workplace outside of, presumably, a university setting. His premises are consistently negative if not outright wrong and his alternatives are extremely naive and vague. |
|
|
Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
posted at 3/23/2011 1:19 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1
First: 3/23/2011 Last: 3/23/2011 |
My apologies for not identifying myself better. I'm a staff writer for Workforce Management.
If anyone wants to comment directly feel free to email. Rpyrillis@workforce.com. |
|
|
Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
posted at 3/24/2011 4:55 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2442
First: 2/12/2000 Last: 9/14/2011 |
Performance reviews cause low morale when they are either:
a. not done well because the manager is not properly trained b. There was no agreement in writing at the beginning of the review period on the goals to be achieved during the period. c. The employee denys or refuses to accept the feedback. Ignoring performance or accepting whatever you receive in outcomes from your staff is not an acceptable solution. Therefore there has to be dialouge. To ensure some consistency in this feedback process companies have put in Performance Reviews that contain these types of basic elements. Obviously it is also a less biased way of determining merit increase amounts and bonuses. |
|
|
Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
posted at 3/24/2011 7:46 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 544
First: 9/27/2004 Last: 9/13/2011 |
Performance reviews are valuable because they provide needed documentation for all kinds of important reasons, but they are problematic if they only exist for the sake of documentation. While nothing can ever replace regular, on-going communication of performance expectations, feedback and recognition, there is no reason why we can't have the best of both.
My understanding of Dr. Culbert's work is that he suggests that we change the emphasis from "review" to "preview" and not that we scrap formal discussions about performance. I think his arguments have merit. If everyone hates giving and getting performance reviews and if so many companies do such a poor job doing them, maybe we should question the traditional process and find a better way? |
|
|
Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
posted at 3/24/2011 9:24 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2442
First: 2/12/2000 Last: 9/14/2011 |
"" If everyone hates giving and getting performance reviews and if so many companies do such a poor job doing them, maybe we should question the traditional process and find a better way? ""
I suggest that we look at what is done at the companies that are seen as world class/best managed companies. Do they have formal reviews? I have not done a formal survey but I would postulate that they do and that they have well trained managers that do not find this a "chore" but rather a "critical" managerial skill....... |
|
|
Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
posted at 3/25/2011 5:05 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 544
First: 9/27/2004 Last: 9/13/2011 |
The point is are they doing them well? I suspect they are if they are successful, but what is it that they are doing differently?
There is such variation in practice that the benefits of a formal appraisal go undetected. What we need is better quality in leader-member exchange, there's plenty of research supporting how that relationship links to performance. I'm just saying that the performance appraisal system should strengthen the quality of that relationship, but that is not what's happening in many organizational trenches, otherwise there wouldn't be such global dissatisfaction. |
|
|
Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
posted at 3/25/2011 5:45 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2146
First: 2/15/2006 Last: 9/14/2011 |
Haven't read the article posted, just some immediate thoughts I had.
(1) I think that often performance reviews hold quite a bit of bias and managers must have good background/training to complete them without those specific biases coming through. At one point, in one HR college level cert course I took through CEBS, it listed out the most common biases. They were possibly from the book "compensation" by Milkovich. I have an earlier edition than the latest though. Without proper training, a lot of perf reviews will be skewed. I think too many managers are never given any real training, just handed a form to complete. (2) I don't know a single manager who enjoys doing perf reviews, even for the best employee. I do understand the need for documentation and without the perf review, many managers would not set goals, etc. and there would be nothing to go back to compare to. So they do serve a purpose. It is just not a purpose that most managers or employees enjoy. Especially if the goals are vague/meaningless just to have something to write down. When I write mine (as a manager or as an employee), I find that going back to a well written job description is helpful. So job descriptions should be solidly in place prior to perf reviews imho. (3)I was talking to my step-MIL over Christmas about hers. At her company, managers are required to end up with an average score of X. Which means they either rate everyone as average or someone high and someone else low. This defeats the purpose if you truly have a very strong department of employees or even if they are all strong in one area. While each will have some areas to improve, it won't always average out in the end. To force that in the beginning skews the process also. And it doesn't bring out the fact that one aspect is strong in the dept where other aspects might be lacking. So in the end I think there are lots of places where the process can be skewed or biased. If it is too skewed or biased, then it defeats the purpose of doing it. I don't know whether any of my perspective/opinions will help with your research/article, but they are what they are *Ã* |
Forums » Topic Forums » General Forum » Performance reviews: A "dysfunctional pretense?"
