BENEATH THE SURFACE Annual Performance Reviews: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly M uch has been made of the use of Annual Performance Reviews (APRs) as a means of employee evaluation. APRs came into general use in the mid-70s along with a host of other “buzz word” management tech- niques and the evolution of the ubiquitous Human Resources (HR) department. At the outset, they were intended to provide both the employer and the employee with a mechanism by which employee perfor- mance could be evaluated, and in the best circumstances, to offer a roadmap for con- tinued growth, improvement and produc- tivity, which of course is what employers, strive for. In theory, not a bad idea. In practice, maybe not so good. Much of the issue with APRs revolves around who performs them, to what end are they utilized and what are the “atmospher ics” surrounding their use. One can also ques- tion what they really tell you about employee performance that you shouldn’t already know. Therein lies the ultimate dichotomy. Should an employer really wait for an entire year to go by to evaluate an employee? And perhaps more importantly, should an employee have to wait a year to find out how they are doing in the eyes of management? In far too many cases, APRs do little more than create fear and anxiety for the person being evaluated. They can provide a conveniently delayed and often evasive method for a manager or management to avoid dealing with employee evaluation on an ongoing and much more effective and timely basis. Prominent management consultant, Ken Goldstein, author of This is Rage: A Novel of Silicon Valley and Other Madness and Endless Encores, suggests that APRs are designed to make HR happy and not to improve employees. He feels that they only “serve to make the workplace more political, needlessly enforcing nerve- racking centers of power.” He also suggests that, for many companies, conducting APRs fulfill a legal and contractual obligation rather than creative purposes. Perhaps a bit of an extreme criticism but probably not all that off base. The Good APRs are certainly a useful tool, when used properly. This is to say that an enlightened and caring manager understands that employees have a desire to know how they are doing relative to their goals and objectives, which should be in concert with those of the department and/or company. Knowing where one stands at the end of the year is not necessarily a bad idea. If the process is used to set goals and objectives for a coming year, then it makes sense. AUTHOR S. Scot Litke, Hon. D.GE effective in their roles, managers must possess these skills. For some, these skills come natur- ally. For others, they must be taught, and in most cases they can be. Operative words here are “in most cases.” Frankly, there are those in management positions who just “don’t get it” and unfor- tunately, never will. As a top-level adminis- trator one must take this into account. In “Employee evaluations, no matter the form, should not be a means of criticizing without offering guidance for improvement.” The Bad The bad comes into play when conducting APRs becomes a substitute for what I feel is a much more important process: providing ongoing feedback and encouraging dialog between a manager and his/her reports. Often managers, particularly those in fields that place a great premium on “measur- ables,” (such as in engineering, and to a large extent, in contracting environments) are not necessarily the most people-oriented folks on the block. Being a good and effective manager requires taking the time to get to know the people for whom one is responsible, and upon whose performance one’s own effectiveness is judged. Employee evaluations, no matter the form, should not be a means of criticizing without offering guidance for improvement. It should not be a “gripe session” for either party. When there is an opportunity for dialog, which by the way implies both parties have a chance to engage, the keys to successful evaluation include sincerity, openness and listening — not just hearing. Unfortunately, these are not traits that come easily to many of those responsible for evaluating employee performance, much less suggesting ideas for growth and improvement. In order to be the end, those responsible for assigning managerial authority may have to rethink who is placed in which position. The Ugly All too often, APRs are really used as an “outplacing device,” meaning that a manager can use the evaluation as a means of justifying firing an employee. Relying on end-of-year evaluations as the sole performance feedback mechanism is often a way to dodge what should happen on a regular basis. Department administrators and/or HR departments can “hide behind” the annual review as a way of avoiding what is a much more effective ongoing performance protocol. Moreover, if there are problems with an employee’s performance, would it not be much better to address those issues when they surface? Measurement When it comes to creating an evaluation tool, no matter when and how it is used, it should allow for employee input. The evaluation process should be for the benefit of all parties. It should provide a feedback loop upon which the reinforcement of positive behavior can be enhanced, and if needed, actions aimed at improvement can be determined. The evaluation process can DEEP FOUNDATIONS • JAN/FEB 2016 • 93
