As many organizations begin their next performance cycle, I thought it would be good to show what makes for an effective process that managers, supervisors, and employees can actually look forward to.
1st in a series
There has been a lot of chatter recently – especially in HR circles – regarding the necessity/effectiveness of Performance Reviews. Some are suggesting their outright elimination, others are calling them a “necessary evil.” My thought is “Do you really know what you are talking about?” Let’s step back a moment and see if we can discover the underlying (root) cause of the discussion to begin with.
My hypothesis is that the problem is based on two different types of CONNECTIONS – practical and personal. I will address the first one here and the other in a later post.
To begin with, let’s look first at the definition of “review.” The World English Dictionary defines review (in its verb form) as:
- to look at or examine again
- to look back upon
In the Performance Management sense, the Performance Review is just that – a formal discussion that looks back upon all of the informal discussions that have occurred to date. Which brings us to our first disconnect – the overall process.
Most managers (and HR types) see the Performance Review as an annual (or s
emi-, tri-, or quarter-annual) exercise with a check box at the end. They fail to see its intended purpose primarily because the regular informal discussions are either:
- not conducted
- not documented
- just not seen as important
So the more formal discussion becomes a haphazard collection of data (usually just the most recent rather than over the time period) placed in such a manner as to prove a particular point and where that point is on some scale (i.e., does not meet, meets, exceed expectations). More on that later.
But the biggest practical disconnect is in the understanding of the alignment of the individual’s original performance goals to the organization’s goals. This alignment needs to be understood by all parties for the expectations to have value.
- The individual’s goals must align with the department goals. If every individual in the department meets expectations, then the department will meet its expectations.
- The department’s goals must align with the group’s/division’s goals. If every department in the group/division meets expectations, then the group/division will meet its expectations.
- The group’s/division’s goals must align with the organization’s goals. If every group/division in the organization meets expectations, then the organization will meet its expectations.
- If the organization meets its expectations, it is well on its way to achieving its strategic priorities and its established vision.
Let me put it in the perspective of the individual. “I need to know not just WHAT I am expected to do, but WHY it is important – what VALUE am I adding to the process?” This helps in both my prioritization of tasks (the more value – the higher the priority) but also my engagement (if I know why I am doing something, I am more likely to give more energy to it).
But it also means that this information must travel from the top (where the vision and strategic priorities are created) down into the individual depths of the organization.
What needs to be done there in my next post.
John Lake has been a Business Culture and Performance Consultant/Trainer for over 20 years. JDLake Communications, LLC is designed to help organizations retain the talent they don’t know they are about to lose.
