This article got me thinking about the periodic employee review. Some folks have been on both sides of the table, others only on one side.

Here's the fixed link:

Job Reviews

Thanks to Hobbes and GreySeal for pointing out the error of my ways. I promise to do a better job while on the job in the future

I remember doing my own review and of course gave myself all A's. This goes along the lines of the bogus interview question about describing your worse fault. Oh, I work too hard, right? What a bunch of AR++.

So, in a casual way, what do you think of periodic employee performance reviews? Good? Bad? Just a periodic pain? Time to throw a party?

I agree that these can be horse puckey... but don't have to. I suppose it depends on what the employee does, but so long as it can be judged objectively and measured in meaningful increments, reviews can be great ways to pat someone on the back (or elsewhere).

Let's use a very easily measureable employee first, such as a sales person. If you compare sales people in similar territories, with similar resources, and similar tenure, there should be similar performance. Goals should be set ahead of time, and reviews are a time to reflect on what went well and poorly alike. For instance, someone's sales maybe high but profitability marginal. Someone's overall revenue maybe down year on year or over his/her peers, but their overhead and margin might be high, etc. One sales person might cause attrition, but be GREAT with getting new business. Another might be just the opposite.

Ok. Those are no brainers.

What about an admin? I have both reporting to me. Well, I like to use this time to talk about timeliness and completion rate. It requires being objective on the front end. Most managers don't set expectations on the front end, and want to make statements on the review that are surprises. If an admin's job is to provide reports, set deadlines. If he/she has filing or appointment keeping duties, inspect what you expect and provide feedback regularly (weekly/monthly, etc). It shouldn't hit a review if they don't have time to fix it.

I personally like to have set expectations, and even for myself. I answer to our SVP who used to be just the guy we complain about. The review was full of "I feels" and "I thinks". Nearly 3 years ago, I sat him down in my first review and said, here's what I expect out of next year. We set KPI's (key performance indicators), goals for revenue, timelines, and referenced all with historical data. When the next review came, it took literally 25 minutes at a lunch on a Friday over a beer. I knew what had worked, what hadn't, and had a plan to build off successes and avoid repeat failures. We honestly had discussed this basically every month end since the last review.

I think where it gets sticky is in the "personality" or "communications" boxes of reviews. Why are these on here? Does someone think that an employee is going to change due to a poor review? I doubt it. Sometimes those portions of reviews are crutches for weak leaders. It gives someone the ability to "feel" their way through an evaluation, and in my opinion most jobs don't have a "feeling requirement". Maybe in healthcare or something, but not in business.

A good leader will take the time to discuss these things (well, all performance) prior to a review. If someone is unapproachable or tough to deal with, they should discuss it. We all have weaknesses, and awareness is the most important way to combat it. If that's knowing that your sales are sluggish, or that you're unapproachable, or that you can't finish an assignment on time, it shouldn't be a shocker that it happened when it comes to review time.

I know this post sounds preachy, but if you have to do these things, these ideas are liberating. It takes practice, as what happens on day 3 of the new year has to happen on day 303 or most of what you've done becomes meaningless. I liken it to walking through water stops during a marathon. Often times, walking through the stops allows a runner to get the water all in their mouth, to get a few seconds to reset their clocks every 3 miles (or so) and to sort out other needs (ie. bathrooms or fuel stops). This can be true with employees. A 30 min monthly meeting can help to address issues, shorten up communications gaps, and give feedback that may be truly news to the person (or yourself). That way, the review is truly just a "highlight reel" of the last 12 months (or whatever).