Performance & Performance Management
Performance & Performance Management covers individual employee’s performance and/or if a company has a structured performance program. Both use feedback, goals, and skills in an evaluation in which to determine accomplishments, achievements, and either recognition or improvements of that performance.
On This Page
Job Performance & Review Methods | More Than an Annual Review | Compensation & Wage | A Personal Story - Lesson Learned
Job Performance & Review Methods
Let’s talk about it. One is about an individual’s job performance and the other is system to track an employee’s performance in the organization. As it’s often come up, a company is not required to do performance reviews. What both allow is timeline and assessment for both the employee and the employer.
A performance review is a backward-looking view that evaluates an employee's work behavior and work quality. These can be done monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual if your employer does them. What’s on the review can vary based on the industry, job role, and if tied to a compensation formula. Most organizations build a custom version of the form.
One of the biggest issues with performance reviews is managers. The purpose of HR and extensive training of managers is to reduce bias. Consistent and fairness is a requirement, not an option. The larger the organization the better the results because using a structure system forces a more authentic result.
Examples:
-
Self-Review or Self-Evaluation – these reviews can be given independently or use together with a manager’s review. It allows the manager to see the evaluation from the employee’s standpoint.
-
Basic Review – these are the traditional performance reviews where the manager completes it and reviews it with the employee. Based on the company and manager, there generally should be an open conversation about improvements or if the employee disagrees with something on the evaluation.
-
Rating Scale Evaluation – these reviews come with an easy-to-understand grading or rating system either using a 1–3 scale, 1–5 scale, 1-10 scale and/or attribute scale using word ranges ‘needs improvement’ to ‘exceeds expectations’, both need to be define on the review form and managers are trained for consistency
-
Measurement Reviews – these can be specialized down to objectives, KPIs, knowledge, and more. These are part of a performance management system. They are trackable and matched against the data; so it’s eliminated the bias (almost) and reporting supports the evaluation.
Those are the basic versions used; the next ones are the highly specialized ones:
-
Customer Aggregated Evaluations – these are geared toward customer facing roles, allowing customers to give honest feedback on the representative’s service. Based on how it’s set up a percentage of the score is used. It’s not full proof if customers abandon the survey.
-
360 View Review – this one is a review on steroids, the premise is to get a fully understood performance, outside of what the manager sees. So, the employee’s manager would complete a review, 2 to 4 co-workers in and outside the department would complete a review and another manager of senior manager would complete a review. The review focuses on how the employee works with others. Variation includes a manager being reviewed by their direct reports, outside customers, and vendors.
Consult your employee handbook; it will explain the review process, wage compensation and how they are done or not done at all. These are business specific.
Performance Management System – is a forward-looking, employee growth planning system. It tracks all the training, additional education, coaching, mentoring, internal projects, outside volunteering and career development pathways. Based on the system set up it generally allows employees to input entries, HR/Training department, and the employee’s manager. These systems are highly beneficial. By housing all information in one place, it makes the review process easy.
These are found in large businesses; who have extensive training programs and understand the power of growing an employee within the organization. From an employee’s standpoint, it is a resource and keeps them on track for leveling up.
Go to Compensation & Benefits
360 View Evaluation, My Personal Story:
I worked for a progressive organization, who was always on the cutting edge of new performance systems, they roll it out. As managers we were trained. Employees were trained. Vendors, Customers, and Consultants were trained. The number of questions the reviewer completed were based on relationship. The overall percentage of score equated to compensation increase I would get, in this example.
My scorecard was made up of the following parts of who completed a review of my performance:
-
Direct manager
-
2 managers (across the organization, who I worked with frequently)
-
All my direct reports (3 employees)
-
1 Vendor (a primary vendor)
The review period opens, reviews completed, and the review period was closed. It would take at least a few weeks before the results would be viewable. A lot of chatter about a ‘delay’ and a ‘problem’ uncovered. With anything new, even with extensive testing, you never know what will occur until you run live. Personally, I don't waste time on listening to chatter and know during any new process or system rollout there will be finding uncovered.
The problem was with the direct reports grading their managers. Specifically the evaluation tied to wage percentage increase. On one that stood out of 400+ employees in the organization. That one individual grade 0 on five questions, with grades of 3 or lower the employees was required to give a reason. This employee wrote “her work ethic is too high”. The low score dropped the compensation payout to 1%. It stood out because the manager always earned the highest percentage. A correction was done and never fully communicated to managers of what the issue was.
The next year, a repeat. That one employee graded 0 and the reason this year was “she’s too smart and I don’t like it”. HR, like they had done the year before, made the correction and didn't disclose the comment to the manager or her manager immediately this cycle.
A week after the closure of this review cycle I received an invite to the executive conference room with no context. In all my years working there, I have never been invited into that room reserved for the top brass only. I was confused and nervous at the same time. Walked into the entire executive team, Human Resources and my manager.
At this point, it's important to disclose that I had a unique relationship with the CEO. Every quarter we sat next to each other for breakfast and bonded over bacon. The breakfast was an awards ceremony (in my tenure with the company I won the most service awards ever) and humbled by the honor. We had a lot of breakfasts together. We exchange advice, enjoyed the peace of eating, and afterwards went about our day. I worked hard and never asked for favors.
At my entrance, he said there was an issue with my 360 review and he valued my opinion on the important matter. My mind didn't get the opportunity to spin, because my employee’s reviews on me were on the big screen. There were comments, snickers, out right laughter and head shaking around the table.
All I could say was, “If the issue, you are referring to, is my high work ethic and intelligence, I’m not sure I can lower them. And clearly I'm never going to get a high score out of Linda”. The room all started laughing, because of how ridiculous it was.
We review other employee's feedback on their managers, all tame and what I would associate with normal responses. On the surface, it appears as a single employee issue, but the roots are with was this review built in a way to provide value to the manager and their employee's opinions.
My opinion was that there is value in the views and opinions from employees. While our organization does a great job with multiple ways to provide feedback. I don’t think it should impact compensation. Granted Linda was the extreme. She has a right to express her opinion, like any employee, this was most likely not the appropriate method to do so. They removed employee feedback from the review process.