Ten Things Managers Do To Screw Up Performance Appraisal
Performance appraisals aren't fun. But a lot of the time they are agonizing because managers do really dumb things, ending up destroying a process that is important to everyone (or should be).
Stupid Thing #1: Spending more time on performance appraisal than performance PLANNING, or ongoing performance communication.
Performance appraisal is the end of a process that goes on all the time - a process that is based on good communication between manager and employee. So, more time should be spent preventing performance problems than evaluating at the end of the year. When managers do good things during the year, the appraisal is easy to do and comfortable, because there won't be any surprises.
Stupid Thing #2: Comparing employees with each other.
Want to create bad feelings, damage morale, get staff to compete so badly they will not work as a team? Then rank staff or compare staff. A guaranteed technique. And heck, not only can a manager create friction among staff, but the manager can become a great target for that hostility too. A bonus!
Stupid Thing #3: Forgetting appraisal is about improvement, not blame.
We do appraisal to improve performance, not find a donkey to pin a tail on or blame. Managers who forget this end up developing staff who don't trust them, or even can't stand them. That's because the blaming process if pointless, and doesn't help anyone. If there is to be a point to performance appraisal it should be getting manager and employee working together to have everyone get better.
Stupid Thing #4: Thinking a rating form is an objective, impartial tool.
Many companies use rating forms to evaluate employees (you know, the 1-5 ratings?). They do that because it's faster than doing it right. The problem comes when managers believe that those ratings are in some way "real", or anything but subjective, often vague judgements that are bound to be subjective and inaccurate. By the way, if you have two people rate the same employee, the chances of them agreeing are very small. THAT'S subjective. Say it to yourself over and over. Ratings are subjective. Rating forms are subjective. Rating forms are not behavioral.
Stupid Thing #5: Stopping performance appraisal when a person's salary is no longer tied to the appraisals.
Lots of managers do this. They conduct appraisals so long as they have to do so to justify or withhold a pay increase. When staff hit their salary ceiling, or pay is not connected to appraisal and performance, managers don't bother. Dumb. Performance appraisal is FOR improving performance. It isn't just about pay (although some think it is ONLY about pay). If nothing else, everyone needs feedback on their jobs, whether there is money involved or not.
Stupid Thing #6: Believing they are in position to accurately assess staff.
Managers delude themselves into believing they can assess staff performance, even if they hardly ever see their staff actually doing their jobs, or the results of their jobs). Not possible. Most managers aren't in a position to monitor staff consistently enough to be able to assess well. And, besides what manager wants to do that or has the time. And, what employee wants their manager perched, watching their every mood. That's why appraisal is a partnership between employee and manager.
Stupid Thing #7: Cancelling or postponing appraisal meetings.
Happens a whole lot. I guess because nobody likes to do them, so managers will postpone them at the drop of a hat. Why is this bad? It says to employees that the process is unimportant or phony. If managers aren't willing to commit to the process, then they shouldn't do it at all. Employees are too smart not to notice the low priority placed on appraisals.
Stupid Thing #8: Measuring or appraising the trivial.
Fact of life: The easiest things to measure or evaluate are the least important things with respect to doing a job. Managers are quick to define customer service as "answering the phone within three rings", or some such thing. That's easy to measure if you want to. What's NOT easy to measure is the overall quality of service that will get and keep customers. Measuring overall customer service is hard, so many managers don't do it. But they will measure the trivial.
Stupid Thing #9: Surprising employees during appraisal.
Want to really waste your time and create bad performance? This is a guaranteed technique. Don't talk to staff during the year. When they mess up, don't deal with it at the time but SAVE it up. Then, at the appraisal meeting, truck out everything saved up in the bank and dumps it in the employee's lap. That'll show 'em who is boss!
Stupid Thing #10: Thinking all employees and all jobs should be assessed in exactly the same way using the same procedures.
Do all employees need the same things to improve their performance? Of course not. Some need specific feedback. Some don't. Some need more communication than others. And of course jobs are all different Do you think we can evaluate the CEO of Ford using the same approach as we use for the person who cleans the factory floor? Of course not. So, why do managers insist on evaluating the receptionist using the same tools and criteria as the civil engineers in the office?
It's dumb. One size does not fit all. Actually why do managers do this? Mostly because the personnel or human resource office leans on them to do so. It's almost understandable, but that doesn't make it any less dumb.
Source: http://work911.com <link updated to site home>
Warm regards
Sujeet Kumar
From India, Pune
5Performance appraisals aren't fun. But a lot of the time they are agonizing because managers do really dumb things, ending up destroying a process that is important to everyone (or should be).
Stupid Thing #1: Spending more time on performance appraisal than performance PLANNING, or ongoing performance communication.
Performance appraisal is the end of a process that goes on all the time - a process that is based on good communication between manager and employee. So, more time should be spent preventing performance problems than evaluating at the end of the year. When managers do good things during the year, the appraisal is easy to do and comfortable, because there won't be any surprises.
Stupid Thing #2: Comparing employees with each other.
Want to create bad feelings, damage morale, get staff to compete so badly they will not work as a team? Then rank staff or compare staff. A guaranteed technique. And heck, not only can a manager create friction among staff, but the manager can become a great target for that hostility too. A bonus!
Stupid Thing #3: Forgetting appraisal is about improvement, not blame.
We do appraisal to improve performance, not find a donkey to pin a tail on or blame. Managers who forget this end up developing staff who don't trust them, or even can't stand them. That's because the blaming process if pointless, and doesn't help anyone. If there is to be a point to performance appraisal it should be getting manager and employee working together to have everyone get better.
Stupid Thing #4: Thinking a rating form is an objective, impartial tool.
Many companies use rating forms to evaluate employees (you know, the 1-5 ratings?). They do that because it's faster than doing it right. The problem comes when managers believe that those ratings are in some way "real", or anything but subjective, often vague judgements that are bound to be subjective and inaccurate. By the way, if you have two people rate the same employee, the chances of them agreeing are very small. THAT'S subjective. Say it to yourself over and over. Ratings are subjective. Rating forms are subjective. Rating forms are not behavioral.
Stupid Thing #5: Stopping performance appraisal when a person's salary is no longer tied to the appraisals.
Lots of managers do this. They conduct appraisals so long as they have to do so to justify or withhold a pay increase. When staff hit their salary ceiling, or pay is not connected to appraisal and performance, managers don't bother. Dumb. Performance appraisal is FOR improving performance. It isn't just about pay (although some think it is ONLY about pay). If nothing else, everyone needs feedback on their jobs, whether there is money involved or not.
Stupid Thing #6: Believing they are in position to accurately assess staff.
Managers delude themselves into believing they can assess staff performance, even if they hardly ever see their staff actually doing their jobs, or the results of their jobs). Not possible. Most managers aren't in a position to monitor staff consistently enough to be able to assess well. And, besides what manager wants to do that or has the time. And, what employee wants their manager perched, watching their every mood. That's why appraisal is a partnership between employee and manager.
Stupid Thing #7: Cancelling or postponing appraisal meetings.
Happens a whole lot. I guess because nobody likes to do them, so managers will postpone them at the drop of a hat. Why is this bad? It says to employees that the process is unimportant or phony. If managers aren't willing to commit to the process, then they shouldn't do it at all. Employees are too smart not to notice the low priority placed on appraisals.
Stupid Thing #8: Measuring or appraising the trivial.
Fact of life: The easiest things to measure or evaluate are the least important things with respect to doing a job. Managers are quick to define customer service as "answering the phone within three rings", or some such thing. That's easy to measure if you want to. What's NOT easy to measure is the overall quality of service that will get and keep customers. Measuring overall customer service is hard, so many managers don't do it. But they will measure the trivial.
Stupid Thing #9: Surprising employees during appraisal.
Want to really waste your time and create bad performance? This is a guaranteed technique. Don't talk to staff during the year. When they mess up, don't deal with it at the time but SAVE it up. Then, at the appraisal meeting, truck out everything saved up in the bank and dumps it in the employee's lap. That'll show 'em who is boss!
Stupid Thing #10: Thinking all employees and all jobs should be assessed in exactly the same way using the same procedures.
Do all employees need the same things to improve their performance? Of course not. Some need specific feedback. Some don't. Some need more communication than others. And of course jobs are all different Do you think we can evaluate the CEO of Ford using the same approach as we use for the person who cleans the factory floor? Of course not. So, why do managers insist on evaluating the receptionist using the same tools and criteria as the civil engineers in the office?
It's dumb. One size does not fit all. Actually why do managers do this? Mostly because the personnel or human resource office leans on them to do so. It's almost understandable, but that doesn't make it any less dumb.
Source: http://work911.com <link updated to site home>
Warm regards
Sujeet Kumar
From India, Pune
Thanks for sharing that article Sujeet...it definetely makes an interesting read. Hope all the 'want to be an HR Manager' types will be careful and not be an example for the above :wink:
Stupid Thing #2: Comparing employees with each other.
Want to create bad feelings, damage morale, get staff to compete so badly they will not work as a team? Then rank staff or compare staff. A guaranteed technique. And heck, not only can a manager create friction among staff, but the manager can become a great target for that hostility too. A bonus!
How do we motivate/distinguish the good performers from the average performers ?
Stupid Thing #4: Thinking a rating form is an objective, impartial tool.
Then how do we measure the performance ?
Shradha
Want to create bad feelings, damage morale, get staff to compete so badly they will not work as a team? Then rank staff or compare staff. A guaranteed technique. And heck, not only can a manager create friction among staff, but the manager can become a great target for that hostility too. A bonus!
How do we motivate/distinguish the good performers from the average performers ?
Stupid Thing #4: Thinking a rating form is an objective, impartial tool.
Then how do we measure the performance ?
Shradha
Hi Shradha,
By Avoiding the mentioned 10 Stupid Things you can create an excellent environment and system for performance appraisal. Performance appriasal need to be used a tool only not create havoc in the organization.
Warm regards
Sujeet Kumar
From India, Pune
By Avoiding the mentioned 10 Stupid Things you can create an excellent environment and system for performance appraisal. Performance appriasal need to be used a tool only not create havoc in the organization.
Warm regards
Sujeet Kumar
From India, Pune
This is a really good balanced article. As a previous Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer before starting my own consultancy it never ceased to amaze me how little people skills executives had. The performance appraisal was often used as a stick to frighten and terrorise people instead of being a tool of ongoing communication and team building. Sujeet this is a great article we can all learn from.
From Australia, Saint Lucia
From Australia, Saint Lucia
Hi Philye, these are handy tips. What impact does it have on employee performance if performance appraisal is done by outside HR consultants. How do HR consultants view this job ?
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Hi Umalme,
Thanks for your question. First of all from experience I would say it is always preferable for a person inside the organisation to conduct a performance appraisal. Using an outside consultant can be very threatening to employees and usually results in the employee thinking there may be a hidden agenda.
That being said if a company's human resource management is completely outsourced then this may be appropriate.
In my business I always teach management how to conduct performance appraisals. As a consultant you come across many different management styles but the key question I ask is 'do they have a heart (care) for their people' In the end we all know who does and who doesn't.
I believe we need to be creative when it comes to appraisals and depending on the industry tailor the appraisal. Some companies use feedback mechanisms, 360, informal talks, very formal appraisals.
There is some emerging thought that outside consultants could be used in very senior executive appraisals by acting as facilitators for in a group peer environment.
In corporate life I always conducted my own as I firmly believe that relationship is very important. Now being a consultant I am still of the view that a inside person is the best.
regards - Phil
From Australia, Saint Lucia
Thanks for your question. First of all from experience I would say it is always preferable for a person inside the organisation to conduct a performance appraisal. Using an outside consultant can be very threatening to employees and usually results in the employee thinking there may be a hidden agenda.
That being said if a company's human resource management is completely outsourced then this may be appropriate.
In my business I always teach management how to conduct performance appraisals. As a consultant you come across many different management styles but the key question I ask is 'do they have a heart (care) for their people' In the end we all know who does and who doesn't.
I believe we need to be creative when it comes to appraisals and depending on the industry tailor the appraisal. Some companies use feedback mechanisms, 360, informal talks, very formal appraisals.
There is some emerging thought that outside consultants could be used in very senior executive appraisals by acting as facilitators for in a group peer environment.
In corporate life I always conducted my own as I firmly believe that relationship is very important. Now being a consultant I am still of the view that a inside person is the best.
regards - Phil
From Australia, Saint Lucia
I found this a really interesting article. It raises a few questions about how to conduct a fair appraisal as much as it identifies poor practice.
One of the things that guarantees a shoddy performance appraisal process is a poor understanding of the PURPOSE. If thepurpose is to determine remuneration, the process must be built on relevant and objective data.
For the most part, I have been involved with performance systems that are more developmental in nature. If this is the approach taken then one of the questions I ask myself is what value is this going to be in terms of the employee's professional development. Whilst it is useful and necessary to collect data for the process, the real value comes from an open and enquiring discussion with employees, in the context of a trusting professional relationship. This approach also requires that I consider what support and learning opportunities I can provide the employee, as manager.
My experience has been that in the vast majority of cases, employees are motivated to improve performance if their value and contributions are genuinely acknowledged and supported. In the rare cases when an employee is "dragging their heels" (and this certainly has happened) there is a separate process known as "Managing Underperformance".
In order to manage underperformance, it is again critical to identify in observable and measurable terms what is required and to make an assessment of the employee's performance against these criteria. This involves regular metings with the employee, a clear statement of expectations and unambiguous feedback about the progress they are, or are not making.
My experience of managing underperformance is that at best, we have achieved adequate performance with the individual concerned with ongoing monitoring. The usual outcome once this stage has bee reached though is termination of employment, or the employe finds alternative employment under their own steam.
Progress Enterprise
<link outdated-removed>
From Australia, Ballarat
One of the things that guarantees a shoddy performance appraisal process is a poor understanding of the PURPOSE. If thepurpose is to determine remuneration, the process must be built on relevant and objective data.
For the most part, I have been involved with performance systems that are more developmental in nature. If this is the approach taken then one of the questions I ask myself is what value is this going to be in terms of the employee's professional development. Whilst it is useful and necessary to collect data for the process, the real value comes from an open and enquiring discussion with employees, in the context of a trusting professional relationship. This approach also requires that I consider what support and learning opportunities I can provide the employee, as manager.
My experience has been that in the vast majority of cases, employees are motivated to improve performance if their value and contributions are genuinely acknowledged and supported. In the rare cases when an employee is "dragging their heels" (and this certainly has happened) there is a separate process known as "Managing Underperformance".
In order to manage underperformance, it is again critical to identify in observable and measurable terms what is required and to make an assessment of the employee's performance against these criteria. This involves regular metings with the employee, a clear statement of expectations and unambiguous feedback about the progress they are, or are not making.
My experience of managing underperformance is that at best, we have achieved adequate performance with the individual concerned with ongoing monitoring. The usual outcome once this stage has bee reached though is termination of employment, or the employe finds alternative employment under their own steam.
Progress Enterprise
<link outdated-removed>
From Australia, Ballarat
:D Great article. Yes in Australia as in many other countries we appear to be 'herd' mentality followers and if organisations are conducting performance appraisals then we think we must.
I agree with your point entirely 'what is the purpose of these appraisals' remuneration, behavior modification, threat, opportunity, development.
Communication and relationship are two of the most critical factors that I see that require urgent attention today. People seem to forget it is not the manager who makes there business money so much as the workers at the coalface. I found that a group effort was always more rewarding and resulted in greater profits than by self effort alone.
Many times I noticed people promoted to management based on qualifications or technical skills but often these people have very little people skills and that's the problem. If you don't understand how people are wired how can you manage and appraise them. In this lean and mean society, where time is of the essence, we need to ask ourselves 'do we really know our people'.
Its a bit like purifying silver the rubbish comes to the top! It is my observation that everything we do in life revolves our relationships and interactions with people.
Why then is it that we put so little time into better training and skilling managers on how to listen, really listen, empathise, and communicate. Management is not hard if you understand how people are wired, much of it common sense!
HR has a opportunity to lead the way but it can only be with management who have a real desire for authentic change and not just change for change sake.
A performance appraisal has the ability to be the instrument of a catharsis for good change if we take the time, built the people, build the skills. My experience is do these things and your company grows. This has been proved by me when I was hired in trading two companies out of insolvency before starting my own business.
Phil
From Australia, Saint Lucia
I agree with your point entirely 'what is the purpose of these appraisals' remuneration, behavior modification, threat, opportunity, development.
Communication and relationship are two of the most critical factors that I see that require urgent attention today. People seem to forget it is not the manager who makes there business money so much as the workers at the coalface. I found that a group effort was always more rewarding and resulted in greater profits than by self effort alone.
Many times I noticed people promoted to management based on qualifications or technical skills but often these people have very little people skills and that's the problem. If you don't understand how people are wired how can you manage and appraise them. In this lean and mean society, where time is of the essence, we need to ask ourselves 'do we really know our people'.
Its a bit like purifying silver the rubbish comes to the top! It is my observation that everything we do in life revolves our relationships and interactions with people.
Why then is it that we put so little time into better training and skilling managers on how to listen, really listen, empathise, and communicate. Management is not hard if you understand how people are wired, much of it common sense!
HR has a opportunity to lead the way but it can only be with management who have a real desire for authentic change and not just change for change sake.
A performance appraisal has the ability to be the instrument of a catharsis for good change if we take the time, built the people, build the skills. My experience is do these things and your company grows. This has been proved by me when I was hired in trading two companies out of insolvency before starting my own business.
Phil
From Australia, Saint Lucia
In Internal appraisal normally people involvevd belong to be part of same process and carry individual interest(95 % in right intention), back log of heavy management practices and human interaction experiences. Those inputs and data collection may be necessary but for indivudual performance to be appraised if external skilled HR proffesional consultants may not be threating instead may be return him or her a list supportive attributes and may less burden organization of self full filling experience.
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Ten Things for Managers.ppt
Ten Stupid Things Managers Do To Screw Up Performance Appraisal.pdf