Performance Evaluation

If there is a task that almost all managers loathe, it is giving performance evaluations. In many of my client companies HR staff complain that managers are routinely 3-9 months late. Staff often complain that it has been years since their last evaluation.

One reason performance reviews are such murky territory is because of the myriad of assumptions people make:

• If my performance is rated anything less than the highest level, then I am inadequate as a person.
• I should always get a rating equal to or greater than my last evaluation.
• If I have put out significant effort, I should be graded on my intent rather than my achievement.
• If I have worked hard, I should be rewarded, even if the company lost money overall.

Managers are no less vulnerable to their own confounding internal dialogue:

• If I have anything other than very positive feedback, it will hurt my report's feelings and probably damage our relationship.
• We have to have a normal distribution of scores, so some people have to receive lower scores, no matter what their individual performance record.

The burden of these assumptions is substantial. Like a classic Problem of Our Own Making, the mere holding of the belief is the core of the issue. Once you fall under the spell of these notions, you are likely to act in the very ways that make them come true.

One of the oft ignored features of a Puzzle perspective is working backwards from a desired outcome. What is the purpose of the performance evaluation system? If that is clear, there are established methods for ensuring that goal is supported in process design. Is it distributing profit according to relative contribution? Is it motivating future performance? Is it transmitting the goals of the organization into individual work plans? Is it enhancing the supervisor-staff relationship? Answering “All of the above” only overburdens the process and precludes any clean design.

Performance evaluation is merely one of the work processes common to management, and it cannot be designed without a clear and widely understood goal. Without that, the process is vulnerable to all manner of personal and political distortions.

Performance feedback systems often tug at profound dilemmas. The most basic is the tension between encouragement vs. correction. On one hand, as a supervisor I want to reward and encourage performance and effort. On the other hand, I also want to provide corrective feedback that is evaluative and possibly threatening. A dilemmas perspective may help define some different strategies for achieving both outcomes.