Performance Reviews – a subset of the Feedback and Follow-up Process

---

Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009

I’ve been reading Ted’s perspectives on performance reviews on his
blog at cynicalsoftwaremanagement.blogspot.com.  We both are
suggesting that there’s a place for performance reviews to be approached in a discussion environment as an alternative to numerically defined rating of skills.

We have some differences about how much the review should be
focused on personal goals (Ted), versus focused on personal impact on company goals (Me). But this morning, I’d like to introduce another thought about performance reviews and rating, and perhaps upset the apple cart a bit more.

Here’s what I notice, reviews of any behavior don’t have much staying power with the majority of people unless there is consistent follow-up on the items or points reviewed.  You probably notice the same.

This seems to fit into what Confusis wrote centuries ago, “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.”  If you think of this in terms of reviews, it means reviews, even discussions, are of relatively low value unless there is follow-up on specifics so that the “doing” stuff is in play and reviewed. 

In fact I think we get overwhelmed with feedback pretty quickly.
I wonder if we don’t lose the ability to tie feedback (performance
review) into “OK, what am I going to do next, do differently…”
within three to six data points.

Stay with me, this gets more interesting.  What if skill ratings
and other forms of feedback are a poor replacement for
active follow-up  in terms of the ability to drive “doing” or
performance improvement?

As an example, if I ask you to better organize and layout
your projects so that we improve visibility – one would think it
would be best for the company to have you “doing” that before
the end of the week, if not starting the same day.  Wouldn’t
you be more likely to do it if you knew someone was going to
follow-up on Friday at 1pm?  You might even be more diligent
if you knew follow-up was at 3pm and you wouldn’t be leaving
the office until it was all in place. 

Now compare that with no follow-up, but another review in
anywhere between 3 and 12 months later.  Which do you think
would have the most impact on your performance?

That is the idea behind performance reviews isn’t, e.g. that they
have a positive impact on performance?  Don’t confuse doing
performance reviews with active follow-up… on specifics.

Bottom Line:
Performance Reviews work best when they set the stage for
immediate follow-up on action items.  Without follow-up,
whether the performance review is a skill rating or a discussion,
the positive effect tails off quickly in time.  Performance reviews
are really only a subset of the primary improvement
process of obtaining feedback and following-up on changes
in light of that feedback, with follow-up ultimately being more
important than feedback in fostering improvement.

Links:
Performance Reviews: Skill Rating, Outcome Measurement or Process Review
Performance Management Software

Posted in Performance Review | No Comments »

Performance Reviews; Skill Rating, Outcome Measurement or Process Review

---

Friday, January 9th, 2009

Annual performance reviews will be due soon for many organizations, and perhaps this year more than any other in decades, it’s time to look at the assumptions behind performance reviews.  Do performance reviews make sense?  Do they warrant the time invested?  Do they effectively address expectations and accountability?  Do they actually move people and the organization forward… that is the goal, isn’t it?

Historically managers approach such reviews with a paper or software based rating scale, typically rating effectiveness at job skills deemed to be required to function well in the position for which the person being rated holds.  Perhaps they include some key performance indicators, which often are impacted by numerous factors.  Conducting this process is presumed to document and improve employee performance.

STOP.  Why does receiving a skill rating make performance improve?

Some suggest Employee reviews don’t work and lead to lower morale, mistrust and communication lapse.  Very negative outcomes, if correct,  for something that’s supposed to improve performance.  Certainly not what you would vote for if selecting the top three drivers for a performance improvement process.Historically we equate skill ratings and fuzzy assessment (without specific backup metrics) of goal achievement with job performance.  Why?

Why don’t we equate job performance with job performance?   I think the answer is because we typically don’t have access to (have invested the resources to measure and track) good measures of job performance.  But it gets worse, sometimes the “direct” link between employee performance and job or business outcomes gets over-ridden by larger environmental forces (like a recession) and so it’s really difficult to accurately say what employee performance lead to specifically what outcomes represented as specific increases or decreases in business or organizational indicators.

If we aren’t really measuring job performance most of the time, why not approach performance reviews as a more open-ended, less threatening, review of “what worked and what didn’t” as it applies to core day to day processes, deliverables and business outcomes?  It’s certainly a question that drives out development of our product ReviewWriter.

Maybe something as simple as discussing what’s working and what doesn’t work so well in relationships (with peers, customers and management), and in the area of completing tasks (on time, on budget, innovatively, with documentation, with quality). 

Bottom Line: Maybe reviews best help performance if they are a scheduled “discussion” and feedback period which should include setting performance improvement objectives, and less of a rating session.  Your thoughts?

Posted in Performance Review | 2 Comments »