Roxanne:
I have kept your posting on my desktop for about a week pondering each of
the 9 reasons you give for eliminating performance reviews.
I agree with the 1st: performance reviews focus on the person. But I
would never make a categorical statement about whether a review includes
or precludes fixing the system.
Deming says focus on the system, that fully 90% or more of problems are
process problems, not people problems. But suppose the review process
brings such a view explicitly to the table in order to educate (or, in the
case of my company today, re-educate, reform and acculturate)? Suppose we
follow a step-by-step approach that allows for a systematic ramp-up of
total quality principles and practices centered around teamwork?
The performance review, in my opinion, can also point in a positive
direction and act as a learning tool.
You write:
"Performance rating suggests that employee performance can be validly
measured, which is very rarely the case." Maybe we're the rare case. I
don't know. I'd say that the guide and suggestions we have, not all that
complicated, allows a manager flexibility in assisting an employee to
recognize, reward and improve behavior through self-analysis.
"Performance review causes an individual rather than a team focus and
works against team efforts". How? We have a growing network of Quality
Improvement Teams. Participation is recognized in the review. The review
in fact has a section devoted to teamwork as a behavior AND teamwork as a
demonstrable measure of participation in improvement activities based upon
the Hoshin goals. Does this cause "individual focus" rather than team
focus? We have no data points to support weakening or weakness of team
focus.
Now that's not to say that in 3 years we won't chuck out the current
review form and process as we spin the improvement wheel. But right now,
our system supports rather than detracts.
"Performance review focuses on the past rather than on the future". Why
do you think this is the case? Our managers, lead people and employees
are responsible in the review process for completing these sections of our
review form:
"What goals has employee established for the next review period? If goals
were established, what steps must the employee take to achieve these
goals?"
and...
"For the period since the last review, complete the table below with
information about the Quality Improvement Teams in which the employee has
been a Member/Leader/Facilitator. How many of these teams constitute work
in progress?"
I don't think this is the kind of judgment in the workplace to which you
refer. The company has a goal: to make money responsibly so that jobs can
remain as secure as can be. Employees must be judged to that goal.
I try to be very careful about making categorical statements about what
will or will not work. In God we trust, all others bring data. What are
the data points for my "assertions"? The facts in front of my eyes in my
particular, peculiar environment.
That's why war stories are so fascinating, which get us back to the thread
about myth/story/group knowledge in the workplace as a means of promoting
desirable qualities which support organizational goals.
I hope I was understandable in this rather long observation.
Best regards,
-- Barry Mallis bmallis@markem.com