The Assumptions Behind Performance Appraisal
In recent days I have been reminded of the use of
performance appraisal. Several of
my friends have recounted their experiences of going through performance appraisal
of themselves as well as doing evaluations on their employees. Also our new
The use of the performance appraisal seems so logical until you look a little deeper. Below are some assumptions that must be true if performance evaluations, as we presently do them (sit down once or twice a year and talk about how the employee is doing), can be valuable and valid.
Evaluation will improve an employee’s performance. If this were not true, why would we take the time and go through the stress associated with doing an appraisal? But what is the evidence that doing a performance evaluation does indeed improve performance?
The standards of evaluation are related to factors demonstrably important to the organization and its customers. Just what criteria are we using to evaluate the employee? Are they corporate goals? Department goals? Personal goals? Extra things that need to be done?
The standards are reasonable and achievable. If the standards/goals that have been set are the “stretch” goals we hear so much about, do they come with a method and support for achieving them? Or might we turn the employee into a loser?
The employee being evaluated has control over the results. Things change. What if one of the goals you were being evaluated on had to do with contracts to design new highways and bridges, and suddenly the government had no money for new highways or bridges?
Each system in which an employee works is stable and capable of delivering the expected results. If the employee is being evaluated on the number of widgets she can make per day, and her machine keeps breaking down, and maintenance on the machine has a low priority, can the employee be faulted for not succeeding?
The employee’s individual contribution can be discerned from the contributions of the system and other managers and workers in the system. Can we really determine the true contribution of a single person? There are so many interactions between people, departments, policies, and machines.
The processes with seemingly identical equipment, materials, training, job description, etc., are, in fact, identical. Is one machine a little older, faster or easier to operate? Have each of the individuals being evaluated been trained exactly the same way? Is the lighting the same?
The evaluation covers performance over the entire cycle of evaluation, not just the period recallable by accurate memory. Can we really remember how an employee was performing several months ago? Unless the goals involve a numerical measurement it is nearly impossible to be fair and correct.
All evaluators are consistent with each other. This would seem to be nearly impossible.
Each evaluator is consistent from one employee to the next. Are we always feeling the same? Do we harbor a few pet peeves or preferences?
As I consider this list of assumptions, I wonder why we continue to plague ourselves and our employees with doing performance appraisals. So what can we do?
· Just stop doing “performance appraisals”
· Think and work on processes and systems rather than individuals
· Create a culture of learning and high expectations
· Coach and lead on a daily basis
· Treat all the separate functions – pay, promotion, feedback, communications, direction-setting, etc., as separate processes – and don’t try to administer them with a performance appraisal.
I know what I am suggesting is controversial. It seems un-American. But for the good of the individual and the organization, I believe we would all be better off without performance appraisals as we know them.