Proposed Solution

The answer to improving the quality of both formal appraisal and informal performance-related feedback does not lie in trying to improve the technical elements of any given approach. Rather, it lies in helping managers to overcome the difficulties that they face when trying to articulate what they know about how an employee is (really) doing into individualized quality information.

The method outlined in this article shows managers a simple and logical way that they can analyze and validate both the positive and negative aspects of their fuzzy mental impressions. It then shows them how to communicate the information in a way that builds the employee's self-esteem, confidence, and desire to do well.

It can be used in several different ways depending on the organization's vision for improving performance-related information and communication.

1.     Show managers how to have discussions with employees about their overall performance and potential (formal or informal, mandatory or voluntary) and what this realistically means for their "fit" and future in the organization. This approach can be used wit all employees for developmental purposes or for specific groups of employees - e.g. probationary employees.

2.     Help managers to give feedback to employees on any aspect of performance as it happens.

3.     Augment any existing formal approach to EMPA in order to increase its effectiveness. The method works in this context by helping managers to build their confidence to explain any evaluation that they want and need to give and to increase the quantity and quality of the discussion that is, or should be, part of the process.

4.   For organizations that don't have a formal approach to EPMA, or for organizations that are considering scrapping or revamping their current formal method, the most exciting application could be as the basis for an alternative way to formally manage and assess performance.

By combining the more subjective discussion concerning "How am I (really) doing?" with an objective process to manage and measure specific results, it can provide a balanced approach that has the potential to be more effective than anything else that has been tried so far.

Before moving into the details of how this method works, it is perhaps important to address the issue of subjectivity in performance appraisal. It is a contentious issue because we have been repeatedly warned to avoid subjectivity at all costs. The main argument has been that subjectivity does not belong in the appraisal process because it lacks validity and it is not consistent from employee to employee. I do not agree with this for the following reasons

* As we have seen, existing approaches present only an illusion of objectivity since they are based upon managers' mental assessments anyway. When they are totally objective (such as objective-based systems) they do not cover the non-quantifiable aspects of performance that are equally important to an employee's successful performance and that are usually unique to that individual.

* If subjectivity is so terrible why are managers encouraged to use it everyday (i.e. to give informal feedback to employees without the benefit of an "approved" process/form)?

* Appraisal feedback is valid if the manager can justify and explain it in a way that describes desired performance and can justify this conclusion with facts when necessary.

* We already know that existing approaches that supposedly meet objective requirements in theory do not work as well in practice..

Over and above those facts, and regardless of any rhetoric to the contrary, these mental assessments (that combine both objective and subjective data) carry more weight than any official formal appraisal ever does. This is because they are communicated confidentially between managers as the 'real deal' and most managers trust in the validity of each other's perceptions. Therefore, if other 'people that matter' agree with these perceptions, or are otherwise convinced that they are true, then such perceptions will undoubtedly end up determining the outcome of the employee's career.

This is the way that employees have always been evaluated in organizations and it is probably the way that they will continue to be evaluated. Furthermore, I would argue that the only thing wrong with this situation is that the employee is generally not privy to the same information!

Why can't we just accept the reality of this situation and work with, rather than against, the manager's intuitive and natural way of evaluating employees by helping him or her to validate, structure, and communicate real and honest information, especially about problems, in an effective way?

After all, we trust managers to combine their subjective judgement with objective information to make decisions all the time. That's why we pay them the big bucks! If we can trust them to do it in every other facet of their jobs why do we assume that they can't be trusted to do the same thing when assessing their employees' performance and potential? It doesn't make sense.

Moreover, employees are desperate for honest, quality feedback that helps them to achieve their potential. In its absence, they have to resort to guesswork to figure how they are really doing. Since they know that their formal appraisal doesn't provide them with the full story, employees try to interpret clues from management's actions and verbal/non-verbal behaviour in order to augment this information. Since it is notoriously difficult to accurately interpret such data - let alone read minds - employees end up doing their jobs the way they have always done them because they don't have any reason to think the approach is not working. However, the old adage, 'no news is good news' is misleading because, as often as not, it indicates the opposite situation.

Summary

I think we need to rethink and reexamine some of our ideas concerning EPMA. It's time for a fundamentally new approach that works with, rather than against, the reality of how performance is really evaluated in organizations.

Specific details for how this can be achieved are provided in Part 2 of this article. More information is also available at www.performancefeedback.com.

Previous page > Implications of the Problem for Existing EPMA Approaches

• More Performance Management Articles
• Performance Management Books

Julie Freeman is a training and development professional with over 15 years of experience in the corporate training environment and in consulting. Her primary area of expertise is in the design, development, and delivery of soft-skills training for managers and supervisors.

Julie has a BA in Psychology with a minor in Human Resources, a Graduate Diploma in Computer-Assisted Learning, and an MA in Educational Technology (the training and development degree).

She now specializes in showing corporations, managers, and supervisors how they can finally achieve the kind of "open and honest" communication with their employees about their performance that works in the way that we have always envisioned that it should.

Julie was born and raised in the UK, but has lived and worked in North America for most of her adult life.

Her website is at www.performancefeedback.com.