It is that time of the year again, time for the Performance Review. if you follow any Atlassian's twitters, you already know the opinions of many on this topic. They range from the light-hearted dismissial ("trying to find enough synonyms for awesome") to the resigned ("[the] whole agonising performance review self-assessment bullshit") to the cynical (see remainder of the post).
This post is not going to be about Atlassian's review policy, but rather what I believe an review policy should be.
I have been on the evaluatee end of 13 annual reviews while working in IT, and have been on the evaluator end for 8 years. I have done reviews with Excel spreadsheets, word docs, and complicated Performance Review tools. I have rated people on three, four and five point scales. I have filled out self assessments based on SMART objectives, B-SMART-R objectives, free form objectives, and no objectives. For the most part, it has been crap.
So how should an semi/annual review look. Here is part 1 of what I recommend.
Don't give ratings/scores.
Scoring systems suck. The mere existence of a rating/scoring system will render the face-to-face meeting the the employee less effective. If you state the rating at the beginning of the meeting, then regardless of the scale almost everyone who doesn't get the highest will spend the rest of the review wondering why they didn't get that rating. If you wait until the end of the review to tell the employee the rating, everything you are saying in the review is being ignored as he or she waits to hear the rating. It doesn't matter if you rate on a three, four, five, or ten point scale, those who did not get highest can be de-motiviated. There is a massive amount of effort (at least for good managers) spent on preparing for the review, and the return on that effort is minimal if the person is busying composing counter arguments in his or her head on why they should be rated higher.
Rating system cause the end of the review session to be focused on "how do I get the highest rating" questions, rather than "where can I improve and be a better developer" questions. The rating system creates this false premise, that if someone ticks all the correct boxes they will get the highest rating, and you as a manager can articulate the exact requirements to tick those boxes. Of course you can't. It is impossible to have everyone be able to be in the top 10% (because the rating systems always have caps on how many people can be in the top bracket), so you cannot give them SMART and/or B-SMART-R objectives that will guarantee a place in the top rating score group. It also becomes harder to articulate that true superstar performers excel above and beyond any set objectives. They have the ability to solve a problem more quickly, ask more probing questions, etc. You can't socre that using SMART objectives.
A better option is a binary scale: successful or not-successful. The biggest benefit is the refocusing of the review on the details of what the person is doing right and what needs to be improved. With this binary scale, it becomes even more essential that the manager spends time doing a thoughtful, thorough and comprehensive review - rather than giving everyone the same general comments and using a rating system as the differentiator. Couple a binary rating with frequent detailed feedback, and you have a much better evaluation system.
Update: I forgot to mention that the rating system is not improved with cool/impressive sounding names for the ratings. Having 1 be "Totally Awesome" and 2 be "Completely Awesome" will not make the person who got a two any happier.
Interesting idea, and leads me to ask - why not go one step further and ditch the scale altogether? For me the important part of a performance review is the detailed feedback, not the rating, but I have seen many staff members get caught up in the numbers just as you describe. If you remove the scale entirely, people will be more interested in absorbing the details. If they're in the "unsuccessful" category, they'll know it because you as their manager will be telling them exactly where they fall short and setting short-term objectives to get them back on track.
ReplyDeleteMel - I have no problem with ditching the scale altogether, although I do like the idea of letting people know if their overall work is acceptable or not. But given that unacceptable work habits/output should be addressed long before an annual review, I would readily accept a review system with no ratings.
ReplyDeleteThen maybe a 3-point system is the way to go. It allows to recognise a very small number of stand-outs (5%?), such that even a standout wouldn't expect it twice. 85% met objectives. Some would get the message that they need to improve, with the clarity that only a rating system gives you.
ReplyDelete