"When it comes to workplace events that produce resentment and anxiety, few score higher than the big annual performance review. Calls to end this time-consuming and often unproductive practice have gone unheeded — until now. Recently, Adobe, Kelly Services, GE, Deloitte and PwC have ended them, and the rippling out to smaller firms and other sectors appears to be underway. To which many say: good riddance."
"Other companies are rethinking their practices, too. Accenture’s 330,000 employees are undergoing what CEO Pierre Nanterme has called a “massive revolution” in which timely, personalized employee feedback is replacing annual evaluations and rankings. Whether you agree or disagree with UCLA researcher Samuel Culbert’s assessment that performance reviews are “a curse on corporate America,” it’s nonetheless clear that they’re falling out of favor."
"Companies such as Juniper and Adobe stopped giving people a one-to-five rating or evaluating employees on a “performance curve,” also known as the “forced ranking” approach. They were still differentiating performance in various ways, and still using a pay-for-performance approach, just not through a simple rating system.
By early 2015, around 30 large companies, representing over 1.5 million employees, were following a similar path. No longer defining performance by a single number, these companies were emphasizing ongoing, quality conversations between managers and their teams."
"To my way of thinking, a one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It's a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work. Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications and teamwork."
"Once-a-year goals are too “batched” for a real-time world, and conversations about year-end ratings are generally less valuable than conversations conducted in the moment about actual performance.
But the need for change didn’t crystallize until we decided to count things. Specifically, we tallied the number of hours the organization was spending on performance management—and found that completing the forms, holding the meetings, and creating the ratings consumed close to 2 million hours a year. As we studied how those hours were spent, we realized that many of them were eaten up by leaders’ discussions behind closed doors about the outcomes of the process. We wondered if we could somehow shift our investment of time from talking to ourselves about ratings to talking to our people about their performance and careers—from a focus on the past to a focus on the future."
"Other companies are rethinking their practices, too. Accenture’s 330,000 employees are undergoing what CEO Pierre Nanterme has called a “massive revolution” in which timely, personalized employee feedback is replacing annual evaluations and rankings. Whether you agree or disagree with UCLA researcher Samuel Culbert’s assessment that performance reviews are “a curse on corporate America,” it’s nonetheless clear that they’re falling out of favor."
"Companies such as Juniper and Adobe stopped giving people a one-to-five rating or evaluating employees on a “performance curve,” also known as the “forced ranking” approach. They were still differentiating performance in various ways, and still using a pay-for-performance approach, just not through a simple rating system.
By early 2015, around 30 large companies, representing over 1.5 million employees, were following a similar path. No longer defining performance by a single number, these companies were emphasizing ongoing, quality conversations between managers and their teams."
"To my way of thinking, a one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It's a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work. Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications and teamwork."
"Once-a-year goals are too “batched” for a real-time world, and conversations about year-end ratings are generally less valuable than conversations conducted in the moment about actual performance.
But the need for change didn’t crystallize until we decided to count things. Specifically, we tallied the number of hours the organization was spending on performance management—and found that completing the forms, holding the meetings, and creating the ratings consumed close to 2 million hours a year. As we studied how those hours were spent, we realized that many of them were eaten up by leaders’ discussions behind closed doors about the outcomes of the process. We wondered if we could somehow shift our investment of time from talking to ourselves about ratings to talking to our people about their performance and careers—from a focus on the past to a focus on the future."
Buckingham, Marcus and Goodall, Ashley. (2015). Reinventing Performance Management. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved on March 8, 2017 from https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-management
Duggan, Kris. (2015). Why The Annual Performance Review Is Going Extinct. The Future of Work. Retrieved on March 8. 2017 from https://www.fastcompany.com/3052135/the-future-of-work/why-the-annual-performance-review-is-going-extinct
Rock, David and Jones, Beth. (2015). Why More and More Companies Are Ditching Performance Ratings. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved on March 8, 2017 from https://hbr.org/2015/09/why-more-and-more-companies-are-ditching-performance-ratings
The End of Annual Performance Reviews: Are the Alternatives Any Better?. (2016). Knowledge@Wharton. Retrieved on March 8. 2017 from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-end-of-annual-performance-reviews/
No comments:
Post a Comment