“Occupy” Performance Appraisals
Why are organizations still doing performance appraisals when 99% acknowledge they are enormously frustrating, waste precious resources, and do little or nothing to improve performance.
“The Imperial Rater seldom rates men according to their merits, but always according to his likes and dislikes.” Wei Dynasty, China, 200 AD
Any employee’s work, including the work of managers, is tied to many systems and processes. Yet, performance evaluations focus on individuals, as if those individuals could be appraised apart from the systems in which they work. Performance appraisal just doesn’t make sense if individuals, or groups, are held responsible for events, behaviors, circumstances, and outcomes over which they have no control.
Most work is the product of a group of people. Yet, the process of evaluating an individual requires a pretense that the individual is working alone. As a result, performance evaluation encourages “lone rangers”, and becomes a divisive influence.
Performance evaluation presumes consistent, predictable systems. Yet, systems and processes are subject to constant changes, often beyond anyone’s awareness or ability to predict. The premise (flawed) behind performance evaluation is that the primary source of breakdowns, errors, defects or any other problem is the employee.
Performance evaluation requires a process of appraisal that is objective, consistent, dependable and fair. Otherwise, the evaluations will be seen as capricious and based on favoritism. But such objectivity and consistency simply do not exist. General perceptions, evaluator perception, evaluator self-image, and the central tendency contribute to an evaluation that is neither objective or consistent.
Adapted from Peter Scholtes article, An Elaboration on Demings Teachings on Performance Appraisal
