6 ms·
Performance reviews exist because they are an accountability mechanism by which senior leaders can go, “okay at least twice a year some kind of feedback is deli
by bentlegen 4y ago
Performance reviews exist because they are an accountability mechanism by which senior leaders can go, “okay at least twice a year some kind of feedback is delivered to all employees from their manager”.
Their effectiveness can be disputed (totally fair!), but my experience when they go away is that every manager does their own thing, and that leads to even worse outcomes because it’s harder to wrangle training, level alignment, and accountability out of ad-hoc periodic feedback (which will surely have varying degrees of frequency, depending on the manager).
- jaimebuelta 4y agoWhen I was in college, there was some surveys that evaluates the professors, by the students, in order to provide aggregated feedback and points for improvement. As one professor put it to us: “it’s pointless, the people that use it as feedback to improve are already good teachers because are using other ways to get better; and the ones that just ignore the surveys doesn’t care about any other way of improving. So the exercise is irrelevant” I think management is the same, good managers take frequent opportunities to give feedback, manage, and care for their managees, and fill a form that it’s already redundant. Bad managers fill a form once a year and ignore it the rest of the year. But, hey, we have a form that’s mostly ignored by everyone.
- bentlegen 4y agoI feel like good managers show up in these as evidenced by the quality of the feedback. It shows in the writing. If the manager hasn’t been doing their job, it’ll be apparent too. That’s been my experience on the other side of this. But I suppose plenty of directors, VPs, etc. can mail it in at this stage and probably do.