Enough Already

In the spirit of summer fun, this week we have a 1-item quiz for you:

1. What's the biggest waste of time, energy and money at work?

If you said, "Increasing morale, engagement, or commitment," give yourself 0 points. You'd be close, but we're tough graders.

If you said, "I know! I know! Performance appraisal processes!" give yourself a gold star. You are right. You've also probably been a victim of one sometime in your career, as has just about everyone else.

Without doubt, performance appraisal processes -- no matter the form, timing or accompanying training -- are wrong on so many levels. But let's focus on their most important failing: They simply don't work to improve performance. Which, of course, should be their goal. We should also point out that many in the world of work believe that their last performance review wasn't even accurate, but that would make our argument too easy.

So what's to be done? Mechanize them? Obsess about timing? Improve training? Change the rating scale from a 3-point scale to a 5-point scale or to a 7-point scale? Force rank? Throw darts blind-folded at a target?

Our suggestion: Stop using them. Today.

"But", the HR professionals among us might stammer, "What will become of Western Civilization as we know it if we don't have a rigorous performance appraisal process? How will we know who our top performers are? How will we link pay to performance?

Our response:

1. Western Civilization will be just fine without the cumbersome, awkward, ineffective processes imposed on us -- processes that ignore nearly every validated guideline for effective teaching and coaching known to humanity.

2. You shouldn't need a performance appraisal process to know who your top performers are. Similarly, you definitely don't need a performance appraisal process to know who your poor performers are. Just ask around. EVERYONE knows who the poor performers are. It's the second worst-kept secret in any company. (Compensation being the #1 worst-kept secret, of course.)

3. Pay for performance? You're kidding, right? A top performer getting a raise that's within a rounding error of mid-level performers or, worse, poor performers is not in any way 'pay for performance'. Don't even get me started on this one.

4. 'HR professional'? Why is there a need for those in HR to add the word 'professional' to their description? Who are they trying to convince and of what?

We say enough already. Think for a moment about the time and money (and consulting fees) you can save if you stop using your process. No more time filling out a form that, being kind, is about as useful as dusting behind your fridge. No more stilted conversations in which the manager is hopeful that the person somehow 'got the message' and the receiver of the feedback wonders what in the world the manager is talking about. No more need to pretend that the rating is justified. No more explaining that 'being on time' and/or 'not missing too much work due to illness' does not make one a top performer. No more e-mails nagging you to complete the forms or have the meeting. No more resentment that your review hasn't happened in, oh, a decade. No more nonsense.

(And, by the way, are there any more feared words at work than, "I've got some feedback for you."? We didn't think so.)

We think there's a great alternative, one that actually works to improve performance. But that's for next week. In the meantime, we say, again, enough already. Put a stop to it. In the name of love.