Performance Appraisal: Leading a Horse to Water

Editor's Note:  I am pleased to feature today's post from guest contributor Howard Risher.

The failure of performance appraisal systems may well be the most frequent discussion on HR blogs.  If we could only force managers to adopt prescribed behaviors, the problem would be solved.  But we can’t, so we circle the wagons and commiserate with each other.

We should have learned after decades of searching for the silver bullet that:

• The appraisal form is not the solution.  We’ve tried everything.
• Technology is not the solution.  Software is helpful but the problem is human nature.
• Training is not the solution.  Of course it’s necessary but too much is ignored or forgotten.
• Policies requiring managers to discuss performance with their people frequently are not the solution.  HR is not in the enforcement business.
• Separating the discussion of pay and development is not the solution although it helps. 

The concerns of the critics boil down to two general problems – (1) supervisors and their people frequently disagree on performance ratings and (2) supervisors are not good at providing constructive feedback.  The critics of course are not wrong – those are problems. 

However, it is also true that organizations need to evaluate their people.  Every employer needs at a minimum to identify (1) its star performers and (2) those few employees whose performance is unacceptable.  The reasons are obvious.  Eliminating performance systems is not an option.

My ‘Aha’ came a few years ago.  Ignore the critics.  The problems will never be completely solved; this is people judging people.  It’s an unavoidable responsibility of everyone responsible for managing others.

The people who have to be at least minimally satisfied are the system users – the managers and the employees they manage.  The word ‘users’ is a key – it’s their system, not HR’s.  The management of performance is a management problem and only managers can decide if this “tool” meets their needs.  In designing other tools, its common to involve the users in the planning.

Actually managers and job incumbents are the best qualified to plan performance systems.  Generations of psychometricians and HR experts have floated their ideas but the problems continue.  There is a very logical reason why the courts accept experienced job incumbents as "subject matter experts" or SMEs.  Experienced employees understand the factors affecting performance.  Senior accountants, for example, know how to assess accountants. 

Small groups of incumbents known to be high performers can, with guidance, identify and define relevant performance criteria – results and competencies -- in two or three meetings.  In doing so, they use jargon common to their occupation and to the organization.  They are more credible with co-workers than top management or HR.  And most important – they produce performance criteria that facilitate those discussions between managers and employees.  Relying on SMEs provides for content validity.

The analogy I use is a football team where every position has its own performance criteria.  Tight ends, for example, would never be evaluated on the same basis as a tackle or cornerback.  Using job-specific performance criteria makes performance planning and evaluation far easier and more defensible. 

For reasons that go back half a century the dominant practice has been to rely on the same generic performance criteria for all employees.  That makes no sense.  The purpose of performance management is not to compare employees. 

Even within the HR function, the different career ladders involve somewhat different competencies.  And its obvious that HR performance issues are far different than those, for example, relevant to engineers.   It used to be worse – words like “dependability” are far too vague – but we still cling to that thinking.

When performance criteria are job specific, it clarifies performance expectations and makes it easier for a supervisor and subordinate to agree on what’s expected and on the assessment of how well that employee performed.  We know that from experience with performance goals.

An added step is to rely on “calibration committees” – I credit Ed Lawler for that phrase – composed of peer level managers to oversee the process.  They should review performance plans and goals for quality and at year end to review at least the highest and lowest ratings.  The intent is to confirm ratings are justified.  Managers are more honest when they know their decisions will be reviewed.  It also increases consistency and trust in the system.

And finally I want managers to know the management of performance is an important factor in determining how they are rewarded.  Then they might take that drink.

Howard Risher is a private consultant who focuses on pay and performance. His career extends over 40 years and includes years managing consulting practices for two national firms. He recently became the editor of the journal Compensation and Benefits Review. He also has an MBA and Ph.D from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Contact him at h.risher@verizon.net.

 

Image courtesy of samanthamcsween.com

Comments

[Dan Walter]

Howard,
Excellent article. You comment of "ignore the critics" may be the most salient point. A I have learned from my rancher Father-in-law, sometimes you can't even lead a horse to water. If the horse is being too stubborn you have to leave it behind to find its own way, or try again another day.

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Well stated, Howard. HR supplies process guidance, as coaches do on your analogous football team, but the coaches don't do the running, blocking and tackling on the playing field. The supervisors are the ones who have to perform here.

[Manager Evaluation Form]

Passion is infectious, and so is caring.

[Asha]

A good thought!! bt how to jusitfy the increments and promotions then...