The DOs and DON'Ts of Functioning Reviews

January 07, 2020

By BJ Gallagher

Is in that location anyone in the workplace who has non undergone the torture of a performance review done desperately? I'm sure we have all had to endure the torment of a well-intentioned simply badly-executed performance appraisement—in which we felt as if we were the ones being executed! Blindfold, anyone? Got any last words before the verbal assault begins? I don't even smoke but I'm tempted to ask for a final cigarette!

Near performance review systems in most organizations are so poorly designed and conducted that they actually practice more than damage than proficient. I ofttimes tell my clients that they would be better off doing nothing rather than doing what they're currently doing! I'm not kidding.

Here are x common mistakes managers brand, and tips for avoiding them. These are applied activity steps you tin accept to blueprint and implement a system that volition do what yous want it to do—improve performance!

Error: The performance review is a one-way, acme-down procedure in which the boss serves equally judge and jury of employees' behavior and achievements on the chore.
Solution: Make it a two-way process, at the very least. (If y'all really want an constructive review system, design a 360-degree organization that involves peer reviews besides as a self-review.) The employee should have written a cocky-appraisal prior to the meeting with his or her dominate—a written document comparable to what the boss is preparing. That manner, both people in the meeting volition be focused on the documentation of job performance, instead of the boss focusing on the employee. Remember: We do not evaluate people—we evaluate their results.

After a brief setting-the-tone introductory annotate or ii by the dominate, the employee should be invited to go over his or her self-appraisal first. This helps eliminate defensiveness and gets the meeting off to a proficient start by establishing that it is a dialogue, a two-fashion conversation in which both parties can share observations, perspectives, and comments about chore performance.

Y'all'll find that your meridian performers will unremarkably rate themselves lower than yous do. That's considering they have high expectations for themselves—often higher than you have for them. You'll find that the contrary is likewise true: Your poorest performers will frequently rate themselves college than you rate them. Whatever the situation, talking almost the gap betwixt your evaluation and theirs will be fruitful in getting you lot both on the same folio (both literally and figuratively) in terms of future expectations.

126790-wpb-5-ways-leaders-results

Mistake: The review process tries to serve every bit a coaching tool for employee evolution, as well every bit a bounty tool to decide salary increases.
Solution: Your performance reviews should be done for either development OR for compensation—not both. If you're interested in coaching and development for improved results in the future, then unhook compensation from the procedure and focus simply on the work itself. Conduct your performance review discussions as far away equally you tin can from the time of year when bacon decisions are fabricated.

If you're doing reviews in guild to make salary decisions, that'south fine—only be articulate that that's what you're doing. Then you lot can comport your review conversations in the few weeks just before raises are announced.

The problem with trying to combine both employee development and compensation decisions in the same session is that employees are only going to pay attention to the coin—all the rest will get in i ear and out the other. Y'all will get no coaching benefits from such a conversation. Employees will appear to exist paying attention to what you're saying virtually their performance, but they're really just waiting to hear the magic number. Money talks—all else is lost.

Mistake: The person doing the appraisal has little or no twenty-four hour period-to-day contact with the employee whose performance is being judged.
Solution: This one is a no-brainer. The person having review conversations with an employee should be the supervisor or manager who has the most contact with that employee and is in the all-time position to accurately appraise 24-hour interval-to-day results.

Fault: Employees receive little or no advance notice of their "Judgment Day."
Solution: Operation discussions ideally should exist conducted on a regular basis, on a schedule well-known and well-publicized to everyone in the arrangement.

Mistake: Managers are vague in their feedback to employees. Or they assign arbitrary numerical "grades" with fiddling or no substantiation.
Solution: Performance feedback needs to exist well documented in order to be effective. Here's where it helps to accept a good paper trail—documentation of both the proficient results and the non-so-skilful results.

Don't rely on your memory in outlining how well the employee achieved his or her goals and met your expectations. (The man memory is a mismatch detector and information technology will always do a adept job of remembering the bad stuff, while forgetting the skilful stuff.) Keep a file on each person who reports to you, and make regular notes to yourself on behavior and results every bit you discover them—the good, the bad, and yes, even the ugly. Encourage your employees to keep files for themselves, so that they, too, have documentation when they are writing their cocky-appraisals. Common documentation helps keep everyone's focus on the job, non on the person.

Mistake: The review procedure tries to evaluate traits, rather than behaviors and results.
Solution: This is one of the most common mistakes I encounter on performance review forms—they attempt to evaluate personal traits, such every bit leadership, motivation, conscientiousness, attitude and so on. The problem with traits is that they are internal and subjective— about impossible to evaluate on a fair basis.

Instead of traits, keep your evaluation focused on two things: Behaviors and results. Behaviors are actions that you can observe directly—she did the filing, he answered the phone, she called on customers, he repaired the machines, and so on. Results are also observable: She achieved her sales quota, he reduced waste by X%, she increased productivity by 10 amount, he completed his projects on fourth dimension, and so on.

Mistake: The appraisal is a once-a-year event that anybody tries to go through equally rapidly as they can, because information technology'southward painful for bosses and employees alike.
Solution: The primary goal in evaluating operation is to improve it. Therefore, you want to design a meaningful system of coaching conversations that people welcome, find useful, and deem valuable. Employees need regular feedback on how they're doing—what they're doing well and what needs comeback. Once a twelvemonth just doesn't cutting information technology. Design a simple, easy to apply arrangement that encourages bosses and employees to engage in ii-way conversations throughout the year—that'south the but way you'll go any real mileage out of a performance review organisation.

Mistake: At that place is no investigation of causes that underlie employees' job functioning problems.
Solution: People don't perform poorly for no reason. In that location are ever causes—but you'll never know what those causes are if you don't make the review process ane of give and take, support and coaching, with both parties focused on the same objective—doing the all-time job possible.

If an employee is performing poorly, ask questions. Don't assume you know the reason—or bound to conclusions that he's lazy, she's dumb, he's unmotivated, or she's incompetent. Use your performance review conversations as opportunities to find out what are the possible reasons for an employee's failure to come across standards and expectations. Hint: When an employee fails to perform fairly, the principal reason is frequently the boss's failure to coach!

Mistake: There is no follow-up action program put in place at the end of the performance appraisal.
Solution: The terminal thing to discuss in a performance review conversation is "What side by side?" What steps does the employee demand to take to make sure that areas for improvement actually improve? And what support does the employee need from y'all to brand that happen? An activeness programme is the perfect element to conclude an effective performance review give-and-take. Keep information technology simple. 3 or four next steps are just fine. Remember, this is the beginning of the side by side cycle in the coaching procedure. Proceed it positive and practical.

Mistake: Any attempt at pay-for-operation is ineffective considering the departure in pay for a top performer and a mediocre performer is and so small as to be meaningless.
Solution: Well-intentioned attempts at pay-for-functioning often backfire because there is too little money available OR management is unwilling to make the hard choices nigh giving big increases to pinnacle performers and no increases to poor performers. So they try to offer a token of operation-based pay, which frequently backfires. The divergence betwixt a 3% increase and a four% increment is meaningless in whatsoever real financial terms—and all it does is create jealousy, hurt feelings, and resentment among employees. My communication: If you tin can't come up with Existent coin for REAL pay for performance, don't do it at all. You lot're amend off giving everyone the same percent increase.

Are you a new manager trying to larn the ropes on the chore? The AMA provides many resources to help make the transition easier, including this webinar for new managers. Or continue your leadership training with our seminar on Preparing to Pb.

Related articles

  • Skills for Finer Coaching a Virtual Team
  • Functioning Review Hooey
  • Become a People Builder: How to Maximize Employee Performance

About the Author(south)

BJ Gallagher is a Los Angeles workplace consultant, speaker, and author of YES Lives in the Land of NO: A Tale of Triumph Over Negativity (Berrett-Koehler; 2006). You tin can contact her at  or her web site, www.yeslivesinthelandofno.com.

Learn more than about managing functioning reviews with the AMA webinar:
Difficult Performance Reviews: How to Turn Painful Conversations into Positive Results