Second only to firing an employee, managers cite performance appraisal as the task they dislike the most. This is understandable given that the process of performance appraisal, as traditionally practiced, is fundamentally flawed. It is incongruent with the values-based, vision-driven, mission-oriented, participative work environments favored by forward thinking organizations today. It smacks of an old fashioned, paternalistic, top down, autocratic mode of management which treats employees as possessions of the company.
The Traditional Performance Appraisal Process
In the conventional performance appraisal or review process, the manager annually writes his opinions of the performance of a reporting staff member on a document supplied by the HR department. In some organizations, the staff member is asked to fill out a self-review to share with the supervisor.
Most of the time, the appraisal reflects what the manager can remember; this is usually the most recent events. Almost always, the appraisal is based on opinions as real performance measurement takes time and follow-up to do well. The documents in use in many organizations also ask the supervisor to make judgments based on concepts and words such as excellent performance (what's that?), exhibits enthusiasm (hmmm, laughs a lot?) and achievement oriented (likes to score?).
Many managers are uncomfortable in the role of judge, so uncomfortable, in fact, that performance appraisals are often months overdue. The HR professional, who manages the appraisal system, finds his most important roles are to develop the form and maintain an employee official file, notify supervisors of due dates, and then nag, nag, nag when the review is long overdue.
Despite the fact that annual raises are often tied to the performance evaluation, managers avoid doing them as long as possible. This results in an unmotivated employee who feels his manager doesnât care about him enough to facilitate his annual raise.
Employee Performance Appraisal is Painful and It Doesnât Work
Why is this established process so painful for all participants? The manager is uncomfortable in the judgment seat. He knows he may have to justify his opinions with specific examples when the staff member asks. He lacks skill in providing feedback and often provokes a defensive response from the employee, who may justifiably feel he is under attack. Consequently, managers avoid giving honest feedback which defeats the purpose of the performance appraisal.
In turn, the staff member whose performance is under review often becomes defensive. Whenever his performance is rated as less than the best, or less than the level at which he personally perceives his contribution, the manager is viewed as punitive.
Disagreement about contribution and performance ratings can create a conflict ridden situation that festers for months. Most managers avoid conflict that will undermine work place harmony. In todayâs team-oriented work environment, it is also difficult to ask people who work as colleagues, and sometimes even friends, to take on the role of judge and defendant.
Further compromising the situation, with salary increases frequently tied to the numerical rating or ranking, the manager knows he is limiting the staff memberâs increase if he rates his performance less than âoutstandingâ. No wonder managers waffle, and in one organization with whom I worked, ninety-six percent of all employees were rated âone".