reviewing the annual review

8/11/2019 Reviewing the Annual Review

1/4


2/4

Two Glitches & a SuggestionNow that the cast of characters and a brief description of the plot are inplace, it is time to examine two of the more troublesome glitches in thetypical annual review process and to suggest a slightly different, but highly

productive twist that has the possibility of transforming the whole show intowhat it was always meant to be.

Glitch #1 - What Happened to the Rest of the Numbers?Many review programs use a 5 point rating scale such as the example below.

(1) Major Improvement Needed(2) Some Improvement Needed(3) Meets Expectations(4) Often Exceeds Expectations

(5) Consistently Exceeds Expectations

In theory, this 5 point scale provides a sound means of quantifying jobperformance and of providing some foundation for evaluating an employeesfuture potential and compensation. In practice, something quite differenthappens.

An experienced manager within a large company knows that:A rating of (1), no matter how well deserved, will be viewed by thecompany as a complete failure on his part. How could he have tolerated

such a subpar performance by one of his team. Could he not have donesomething to correct this at some point during the year? Was heincapable of affecting the performance of his team members? That (1)may well be an accurate indictment of that employees incompetence buthe will be charged with a clear case of aiding and abetting thatincompetence.

A rating of (5), aimed at rewarding the stellar performance of his bestemployee, will also be personally disastrous. How could anyone beperforming at that level? Was he just not paying attention or was he

naive? If that person was that good, they would have been promoted longago.

NOTE:Effectively, it is now a 3 point rating scale, and there are still otherdistorting forces to be considered.

A rating of (2), indicating less than satisfactory performance, has its ownconsequences. The manager will need to explain how this happened; why

2


3/4

they allowed it to happen; what they are going to do about it; and what dothey think will be the ultimate outcome. This means a minimum of 30minutes of time pulled from somewhere in an already impossibleschedule, and that is for each employee rated a (2).

A rating of (4), calling out the marvelous performance of a few of his keyemployees, often results in similar consequences to a (2). That (4)carrieswith it an increase in salary or bonus of some kind and implied progresstoward a promotion or increase in responsibilities. Of course, these areincreased expenses and therefore call for him to justify the (4). What aresome examples of this exceptional performance? Is it constant or werethese just isolated events? How do they translate into higher levels ofresponsibility? And so on requiring more of the time that he does nothave now.

At this point, the hard-working, diligent manager recognizes withundisputed clarity the value of rating each member of his team (3). Itrecognizes their accomplishments and at the same time, forgives as itwere, their miscues. A clear Meets Expectations is cheered for itssatisfactory rating and welcomed by all for its efficiency and economy oftime and energy. Of course from time to time, a few employees will eithercommit an error so egregious as to demand a (2), or perform someservice so exemplary that anything less than a (4) would constitute adismissal. Still, the manager knows that the bulk of reviews can beconsigned to the safe haven of (3)and all parties are happy.

Glitch #2 - Anyone Can Do ThatRight?A fundamental premise of annual reviews is that the employees are capableof doing the job in question. The second premise is that if the employees arenot performing the job in question to a satisfactory level, it is simply a matterof training their skills to a higher level, having them acquire more experienceat that job, or motivating them in some way to put forth more energy or hardwork in order for them to improve their performance. In the past two decadeshowever, extensive and wide-ranging research has shown beyond a shadow

of a doubt, that if an employee lacks the hard-wired traits or abilitiesnecessary for certain job behaviors, it is virtually impossible for them todeliver satisfactory performance in that particular job for any extended periodof time. This is true despite extensive training, rich experience or any type ofmotivation.

To facilitate annual review processes for executives, a common practice is toidentify a set of executive competencies that all executives must have. The

3


4/4

review is then oriented to those competencies and the extent to which eachexecutive has demonstrated them during the year. The glitch is that, in effect,the competencies are a bad marriage between a wish list for the perfectexecutive and a one-size-fits-all prescription for how to ensure executiveexcellence.

The competency building process tends to be comprehensive. Everythingthat can be of value to any executive position is added to the list for allexecutive positions. If baseball teams did this, they would expect the samebatting average from the pitcher as from the outfielders; the catch wouldneed to steal bases; and the shortstop would need to throw a mean curveball. Instead, baseball teams recognize that each position requires differentstrengths if they are to be a successful team. That knowledge enables themto maximize the performance of each player on the team. Conversely,businesses bundle everyone into the same set of competencies. Executive

with tactical responsibilities are expected to exhibit strategic vision.Executives who manage complex processes are challenged to show strongpeople management skills. At times, competencies compete with each other,with unfortunate executives being asked to be master planners while at thesame time being responsible for handling any unplanned situations orevents. Can they really do that? Yes, to some extent, but they cannotoptimize their potential under those circumstances.

A Suggestion - What If We Focused on Tall?Today it is possible to easily see the hard-wired strengths and abilities of

each employee. These are the foundation of any competency. Thatinformation connects the employees capabilities with the job behaviorsrequired in their position. It assists the manager in determining what are thereasonable expectations of performance. The manager can then providepersonally meaningful feedback and coaching that is far more effective thanstandard review processes. They can focus the employees responsibilitiesinto areas that depend on their strengths, and they can minimize the areas inwhich they lack strengths. It is a connection that lives on a daily basis. It isrelevant with each new project. It is key to each moment of feedback. It canultimately provide the core of an entirely new level of talent management.

4

reviewing the annual review

Documents