How to Improve the Effectiveness of Performance Management and Appraisal
by Overcoming the Root Cause of the Problem
By Julie Freeman
This article explores why
existing formal and informal approaches to employee performance management and
appraisal (EPMA) tend to work well enough in theory, but fail to meet
expectations in practice.
It is split into two parts. Part 1 identifies the root cause
of the problem and presents a solution for how it can be eliminated, or at
least minimized. explains in
more detail how this solution works. Various suggestions for how it can be applied to meet differing
individual or corporate needs are also outlined.
Part 1: Cause and Solution
Current Situation
There is a huge amount of frustration and
dissatisfaction with existing methods of formal employee performance management
and appraisal (EPMA). Regardless of
whether the approach is based on rating scales, competency assessments,
objectives, key performance indicators, or other performance standards, rankings,
360-degree feedback, or the balanced scorecard, the problem appears to be the
same. While they all appear to work
well enough in theory, to a greater or lesser extent they all tend to fail in
practice. They just don't seem to
measure up to the expectations that managers, employees, and organizations
alike have for them. This appears to be
the case even when the implementation of a given method is well managed and
accompanied by proper training on how it should be used
The problem is not limited to formal EPMA
systems. Organizations encourage, even
urge, their managers to talk informally with their employees about their
performance on an ongoing basis. However, this rarely happens. Moreover, even if it does occur, the discussion itself and the results
it achieves are often less than ideal. Despite our best efforts to date, managers still report that they are
uncomfortable giving feedback and discussing performance with their employees,
especially if poor performance is a factor. Consequently, they avoid the situation, or fudge the facts, whenever
possible.
The reasoning behind formal or informal
EPMA is laudable; however, the methods we currently use do not achieve the
results we want. The bottom line is
that "open and honest" communication (the Holy Grail of appraisal
generally) remains elusive. The problem
is real and pervasive and every organization seems to be struggling with
it.
While it is difficult to quantify the
negative effect that such a problem must have within an organization, we know
(at least intuitively) that it is probably staggering. For example, my estimates indicate that,
regardless of whether it is done formally or informally, only about 10 per cent
of the managerial population have a natural ability to discuss performance with
their employees in an effective way. Since it is likely that this population follows a normal statistical
distribution it means that, for the remaining 90 per cent of managers, giving
feedback and discussing performance with employees remains a task that is
easier said than done. This appears to be the case regardless of whether or not they have
previously received any training in how to do it properly.
Aside from the obvious negative
consequences that a problem of this magnitude has on an organization's
productivity, the costs on a human level in terms of low morale and
demotivation may be equally devastating. While this cost is not necessarily quantifiable, it is definitely
reflected in the bottom line. Not being
'open and honest' with employees about their performance, how they are
perceived by management and what such a perception means for the future, raises
some important moral and ethical questions around an organization's
responsibility for, and often-stated commitment to, developing its employees.
For example, is it right for managers to
give acceptable formal appraisals in order to avoid bringing up poor
performance issues and then to subsequently deal with them by ignoring,
sidelining, downsizing, 'promoting", or transferring, employees without
telling them why? Is it fair to expect
any employee (including managers) to resort to guesswork to find out how they
are perceived and what this means for their career?
Ultimately, is it a smart (or even an
acceptable) organizational strategy to leave employee success to chance? To expect employees to succeed not as a
result of clear information about how well they are they are doing, but rather
in spite of it?
Most books on management (including the
recent bestseller, First, Break All the
Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently by Marcus
Buckingham and Curt Coffman, 1999) advocate the importance and intrinsic value
- at both an organizational and individual level - of helping employees to
reach their full potential by assisting them to find their right 'fit' in (or
out) of the organization. However, as
these books point out, this is a managerial task, not an organizational
one. Unfortunately, it is this basic
inability of most managers to sit down and talk to employees honestly and effectively about their
performance and potential that prevents them from following such advice. The process is stopped before it even
starts.
Next page >