4 ms·

Annual reviews are too coarse of a tool to be effective. They cause stress for employees because a year's worth of feedback gets dumped on them at once. It is d

by koliber 11y ago

Annual reviews are too coarse of a tool to be effective. They cause stress for employees because a year's worth of feedback gets dumped on them at once. It is difficult to condense a year's worth of issues, praises, concerns, props, and feedback into a one-hour meeting. Reducing people to a set of numbers often leads to negative feelings. Good relationships, be it professional or otherwise, are based on effective communication. An ongoing conversation between managers and their reports is the best way for a manager to know what is going on and be connected, and for an employee to feel heard and in-touch. This conversation must be continuous and embrace all aspects of a employee-manager relationship. I've been working for over three years on a service called 15Five which is a tool for such communication. It is neat to hear how people use this service in their organizations as an alternative to annual reviews. I feel there is a growing shift away from quantified annual reviews and into more conversational feedback loops.

spydum 11y ago
i think the largest obstacle is that performance bonuses are still paid ANNUALLY. If I have an amazing Q1/Q2/Q3, but a terrible Q4, guess what happens when payouts come around? Manager remembers the last thing you did. if the industry really wants to transform performance, pay them out monthly or quarterly The real answer is, they dont want to. In fact, I suspect you will see an industry trend to disband performance bonuses for all non C-level employees over the next 5-10 years.
- curun1r 11y ago
  > In fact, I suspect you will see an industry trend to disband performance bonuses for all non C-level employees over the next 5-10 years. I doubt that. Bonuses are basically a portion of an employee's salary that can be rescinded at the company's whim. Employees won't simply start working for less, so eliminating bonuses would remove the company's ability to give more during the fat years and less during the lean years. Terming them bonuses is actually wrongheaded, considering employees expect to get that money. Bonuses are on the offer letter...it's not like people show up their first day after accepting the offer and are told, "by the way, you'll get $X/yr bonus." They're actually concessions made by the employee during the negotiation phase to give the company flexibility over a portion of their salary. And I doubt we'll see companies want to give up that flexibility.
  - plonh 11y ago
    Yes the proper term is "variable compensation"
cmdkeen 11y ago
Well there is a school of thought that says the only "new" feedback you should be getting in your annual review is very recent feedback. Negative, constructive of course, should be being brought up earlier in the year in order to give you a chance to correct that behaviour - after all that is the point of developing an individual. Traditionally this is what the 6 month, mid period, halfway etc review is for - giving feedback and reviewing the objectives your annual appraisal will be based on. Being criticised by a colleague for something they've failed to bring up until now is a sign it clearly isn't that serious. Having a manager sit on negative feedback until the review is a sign of a very bad manager. In both cases I'd be pushing strongly back.
- koliber 11y ago
  Well said. What needs to be considered also is that a manager may have different types of negative feedback. He may have major issues, which would be strange to hold on to until the annual review. However, there may also be a bunch of smaller pieces of criticism, which will fall under a particular threshold and will be held back, either entirely, or until an opportunity for a review arises. That opportunity may be a long ways away. The trick is having constant feedback. Weekly, bi-weekly, or even monthly review-like events allow both the employer and employee to share wins and discuss areas of friction. Having lots of such mini-reviews allows for quicker resolution and prevents things from boiling up. Fantastic managers do this intuitively and do not need instruction or tools for it.

by koliber 11y ago

spydum 11y ago

i think the largest obstacle is that performance bonuses are still paid ANNUALLY. If I have an amazing Q1/Q2/Q3, but a terrible Q4, guess what happens when payouts come around? Manager remembers the last thing you did. if the industry really wants to transform performance, pay them out monthly or quarterly The real answer is, they dont want to. In fact, I suspect you will see an industry trend to disband performance bonuses for all non C-level employees over the next 5-10 years.

curun1r 11y ago
> In fact, I suspect you will see an industry trend to disband performance bonuses for all non C-level employees over the next 5-10 years. I doubt that. Bonuses are basically a portion of an employee's salary that can be rescinded at the company's whim. Employees won't simply start working for less, so eliminating bonuses would remove the company's ability to give more during the fat years and less during the lean years. Terming them bonuses is actually wrongheaded, considering employees expect to get that money. Bonuses are on the offer letter...it's not like people show up their first day after accepting the offer and are told, "by the way, you'll get $X/yr bonus." They're actually concessions made by the employee during the negotiation phase to give the company flexibility over a portion of their salary. And I doubt we'll see companies want to give up that flexibility.
- plonh 11y ago
  Yes the proper term is "variable compensation"

cmdkeen 11y ago

Well there is a school of thought that says the only "new" feedback you should be getting in your annual review is very recent feedback. Negative, constructive of course, should be being brought up earlier in the year in order to give you a chance to correct that behaviour - after all that is the point of developing an individual. Traditionally this is what the 6 month, mid period, halfway etc review is for - giving feedback and reviewing the objectives your annual appraisal will be based on. Being criticised by a colleague for something they've failed to bring up until now is a sign it clearly isn't that serious. Having a manager sit on negative feedback until the review is a sign of a very bad manager. In both cases I'd be pushing strongly back.

koliber 11y ago
Well said. What needs to be considered also is that a manager may have different types of negative feedback. He may have major issues, which would be strange to hold on to until the annual review. However, there may also be a bunch of smaller pieces of criticism, which will fall under a particular threshold and will be held back, either entirely, or until an opportunity for a review arises. That opportunity may be a long ways away. The trick is having constant feedback. Weekly, bi-weekly, or even monthly review-like events allow both the employer and employee to share wins and discuss areas of friction. Having lots of such mini-reviews allows for quicker resolution and prevents things from boiling up. Fantastic managers do this intuitively and do not need instruction or tools for it.