Others have described annual reviews as a last-century practice and blamed them for a lack of collaboration and innovation. In a recent article for People + Strategy, a Deloitte manager referred to the review process as “an investment of 1.8 million hours across the firm that didn’t fit our business needs anymore.” One Washington Post business writer called it a “rite of corporate kabuki” that restricts creativity, generates mountains of paperwork, and serves no real purpose. Without question, rethinking performance management is at the top of many executive teams’ agendas, but what drove the change in this direction? Many factors.
REALTIME LANDSCAPING PRO 2012 REVIEW PROFESSIONAL
Yet they’ve been joined by a number of professional services firms ( Deloitte, Accenture, PwC), early adopters in other industries (Gap, Lear, OppenheimerFunds), and even General Electric, the longtime role model for traditional appraisals. From Silicon Valley to New York, and in offices across the world, firms are replacing annual reviews with frequent, informal check-ins between managers and employees.Īs you might expect, technology companies such as Adobe, Juniper Systems, Dell, Microsoft, and IBM have led the way. But now, by some estimates, more than one-third of U.S. In his presentation at the Wharton School, Jensen explained that Colorcon had found a more effective way of reinforcing desired behaviors and managing performance: Supervisors were giving people instant feedback, tying it to individuals’ own goals, and handing out small weekly bonuses to employees they saw doing good things.īack then the idea of abandoning the traditional appraisal process-and all that followed from it-seemed heretical. This was in 2002, during his tenure as the drugmaker’s head of global human resources. When Brian Jensen told his audience of HR executives that Colorcon wasn’t bothering with annual reviews anymore, they were appalled. Some firms that have struggled to go entirely without ratings are trying a “third way”: assigning multiple ratings several times a year to encourage employees’ growth. This shift isn’t just a fad-real business needs are driving it. To better support employee development, many organizations are dropping or radically changing their annual review systems in favor of giving people less formal, more frequent feedback that follows the natural cycle of work. That can hinder long-term competitiveness. Other firms are trying hybrid approaches-for example, giving employees performance ratings on multiple dimensions, coupled with regular development feedback.īy emphasizing individual accountability for past results, traditional appraisals give short shrift to improving current performance and developing talent for the future.
Some companies worry that going numberless may make it harder to align individual and organizational goals, award merit raises, identify poor performers, and counter claims of discrimination-though traditional appraisals haven’t solved those problems, either. (3) Prioritizing improvement over accountability promotes teamwork. (2) The rapidly changing business environment requires agility, which argues for regular check-ins with employees. The authors explain how performance management has evolved over the decades and why current thinking has shifted: (1) Today’s tight labor market creates pressure to keep employees happy and groom them for advancement. That’s why many organizations are moving to more-frequent, development-focused conversations between managers and employees. The annual review’s biggest limitation, the authors argue, is its emphasis on holding employees accountable for what they did last year, at the expense of improving performance now and in the future. Hated by bosses and subordinates alike, traditional performance appraisals have been abandoned by more than a third of U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
