This link has been bookmarked by 84 people . It was first bookmarked on 20 Oct 2008, by someone privately.
-
28 May 13
-
08 Apr 13
-
one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It's a negative to corporate performance,
-
n obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work
-
purpose of performance reviews is to enlighten subordinates about what they should be doing better or differently
-
I see it as intimidation aimed at preserving the boss's authority and power advantage. Such intimidation is unnecessary, though: The boss has the power with or without the performance review.
-
seven reasons
-
TWO PEOPLE, TWO MIND-SETS
-
The mind-sets held by the two participants in a performance review work at cross-purposes
-
The boss wants to discuss where performance needs to be improved, while the subordinate is focused on such small issues as compensation, job progression and career advancement. The boss is thinking about missed opportunities, skill limitations and relationships that could use enhancing
-
Then there are second-order problems
-
characterization of faults runs the risk of adding another to the boss's list: "defensiveness and resistance to critique." And the boss who gets her mind turned around by a subordinate's convincing argument runs the risk of having a bigger boss think she failed to hold the line on what had been decided and budgeted. Good luck to her when she next gets evaluated.
-
PERFORMANCE DOESN'T DETERMINE PAY
-
Another bogus element is the idea that pay is a function of performance, and that the words being spoken in a performance review will affect pay.
-
Raises are then determined by the boss, and the boss's boss, largely as a result of the marketplace or the budget
-
the raise is lower than the subordinate expects, the boss has to say, "We can work to get it higher in the future, and here are the things you need to do to get to that level." Or the boss can say, "I think you walk on water, but I got push-back from H.R. and next year we'll try again."
-
OBJECTIVITY IS SUBJECTIVE
-
Most performance reviews are staged as "objective" commentary, as if any two supervisors would reach the same conclusions about the merits and faults of the subordinate. But consider the well-observed fact that when people switch bosses, they often receive sharply different evaluations from the new bosses to whom they now report
-
just a slicker way for people to push what's in their political interests to establish, without having their biases and motives questioned?
-
o my way of thinking, the closest one can get to "objective" feedback is making an evaluator's personal preferences, emotional biases, personal agendas and situational motives for giving feedback sufficiently explicit, so that recipients can determine what to take to heart for themselves.
-
ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL
-
Employees all come with their own characteristics, strong suits and imperfections that they orchestrate in every attempt to perform their best. Because no two people come similarly equipped, they draw upon the unique pluses and minuses they were endowed with at birth along with compensatory assets they subsequently developed.
-
measured" has less to do with what an individual was focusing on in attempting to perform competently and more to do with a checklist expert's assumptions about what competent people do
-
PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT IS IMPEDED
-
Worse, bosses apply the same rating scale to people with different functions.
-
They don't redo the checklist for every different activity.
-
which is exactly what they would do if they arm the boss with the kind of personal information he or she would need to help them develop. It could all come back to haunt them in the performance review.
-
PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT IS IMPEDED
-
You would think that the person in the best position to help somebody improve would be his or her boss.
-
he performance review, the boss is often the last person an employee would turn to.
-
DISRUPTION TO TEAMWORK
-
No. 1 reason for that reluctance is that employees want to turn to somebody who understands their distinctive talents and way of thinking, or knows them sufficiently well to appreciate the reasons behind the unique ways they are driven to operate.
-
people don't want to pay a high price for acknowledging their need for improvement
-
IMMORALITY OF JUSTIFYING CORPORATE IMPROVEMENT
-
I believe it's immoral to maintain the facade that annual pay and performance reviews lead to corporate improvement,
-
The net result is a resource violation
-
every organization should be considered partially a public entity since they exist, in part, to provide meaningful activities for the people who work in them
-
Skills and mind-sets acquired at work go home with people to affect family, community, culture and even the world. The more positive an atmosphere we can create at work, the more positive an impact it has at home. In short, what goes around comes around.
-
The boss's assignment is to guide, coach, tutor, provide oversight and generally do whatever is required to assist a subordinate to perform successfully.
-
the boss-direct report team should be held jointly accountable for the quality of work the subordinate performs.
-
Previews are problem-solving, not problem-creating, discussions about how we, as teammates, are going to work together even more effectively and efficiently than we've done in the past. They feature descriptive conversations about how each person is inclined to operate, using past events for illustrative purposes, and how we worked well or did not work well individually and together.
-
It doesn't happen only annually; it takes place each time either the boss or the subordinate has the feeling that they aren't working well together.
-
-
06 Mar 13
-
25 Nov 12
-
04 Nov 12
William WongIt destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that's just for starters.
-
20 Oct 12
Mike FranksBosses should be asking all the questions that occur to them in inquiring about how a subordinate thinks he or she can best perform the job. Then, after they have exhausted their questions, they should ask the subordinate for what else they need to know. At a minimum, they should be asking "How will you be going about it?" and "Specifically, what help do you need from me?" Why not get it all when, at the end of the day, the boss still has the authority to play ultimate decider?
-
10 Nov 11
-
16 Oct 11
-
11 Jun 11
-
22 Feb 11
-
10 Sep 10
Lukas VerkerkArticle - Get rid of the performance review (Samuel Culbert, Wall Street Journal)
"To my way of thinking, a performance review is a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work". This is UCLA professor Samuel Culbert talking. He has seven arguments against holding a yearly performance review. Culbert proposes two-side, reciprocally accountable, performance previews. Gilbert: "The preview structure keeps the focus on the future and what "I" need from you as "teammate and partner" in getting accomplished what we both want to see happen. It doesn't happen only annually; it takes place each time either the boss or the subordinate has the feeling that they aren't working well together."\n\nWatch this video to learn more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122426318874844933.html#articleTabs%3Dvideo\n
Source: IBS Research Alert 12performance management performance review top employer talent development team work culture accountability leadership personal development talent management performance engagement IBSAlert12
-
27 Jul 10
Mireille JansmaArticle - Get rid of the performance review (Samuel Culbert, Wall Street Journal)
"To my way of thinking, a performance review is a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work". This is UCLA professor Samuel Culbert talking. He has seven arguments against holding a yearly performance review. Culbert proposes two-side, reciprocally accountable, performance previews. Gilbert: "The preview structure keeps the focus on the future and what "I" need from you as "teammate and partner" in getting accomplished what we both want to see happen. It doesn't happen only annually; it takes place each time either the boss or the subordinate has the feeling that they aren't working well together."\n\nWatch this video to learn more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122426318874844933.html#articleTabs%3Dvideo\nperformance management performance review talent management performance engagement IBSAlert12
-
12 Jul 10
-
09 Jul 10
-
20 Apr 10
-
15 Mar 10
-
03 Dec 09
-
01 Oct 09
-
16 Apr 09
-
27 Mar 09
-
22 Nov 08
August JacksonTo 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 m
-
21 Nov 08
-
19 Nov 08
-
11 Nov 08
-
-
05 Nov 08
bob dolanIt destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that's just for starters.
-
04 Nov 08
-
03 Nov 08
-
28 Oct 08
-
paul reidTo 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.
-
27 Oct 08
-
24 Oct 08
-
23 Oct 08
miqueyDr. Culbert is a consultant, author and professor of management at the UCLA Anderson School of Management in Los Angeles.
-
22 Oct 08
Navin VazGet Rid of the Performance Review!
It destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that's just for starters.By SAMUEL A. CULBERTperformance Review human resources teamwork leadership management career work productivity
-
-
Get Rid of the Performance Review!
-
-
21 Oct 08
-
-
Another bogus element is the idea that pay is a function of performance, and that the words being spoken in a performance review will affect pay. But usually they don't. I believe pay is primarily determined by market forces, with most jobs placed in a pay range prior to an employee's hiring.
-
Most performance reviews are staged as "objective" commentary, as if any two supervisors would reach the same conclusions about the merits and faults of the subordinate. But consider the well-observed fact that when people switch bosses, they often receive sharply different evaluations from the new bosses to whom they now report.
-
Worse, bosses apply the same rating scale to people with different functions. They don't redo the checklist for every different activity. As a result, bosses reduce their global sentiments to a set of metrics that captures the unique qualities of neither the person nor the job.
-
The No. 1 reason for that reluctance is that employees want to turn to somebody who understands their distinctive talents and way of thinking, or knows them sufficiently well to appreciate the reasons behind the unique ways they are driven to operate.
-
That's because the performance review is so one-sided, giving the boss all the power. The boss in the performance review thinks of himself or herself as the evaluator, and doesn't engage in teamwork with the subordinate. It isn't, "How are we going to work together as a team?" It's, "How are you performing for me?" It's not our joint performance that's at issue. It's the employee's performance that's a problem.
-
Instead of stimulating corporate effectiveness, they lead to just-in-case and cover-your-behind activities that reduce the amount of time that could be put to productive use. Instead of promoting directness, honesty and candor, they stimulate inauthentic conversations in which people cast self-interested pursuits as essential company activities.
-
Keep in mind, of course, that improvement is each individual's own responsibility. You can only make yourself better. The best you can do for others is to develop a trusting relationship where they can ask for feedback and help when they see the need and feel sufficiently valued to take it. Getting rid of the performance review is a necessary, and affirming, step in that direction.
-
-
blackwoodIt destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that's just for starters.
-
Uma Shankarcross-purposes. The boss wants to discuss where performance needs to be improved, while the subordinate is focused on such small issues as compensation, job progression and career advancement. The boss is thinking about missed opportunities, skill limitat
work review resources resource productivity performance office management reviews wsj
-
David Feld"You can call me 'dense,' you can call me 'iconoclastic,' but I see nothing constructive about an annual pay and performance review. It's a mainstream practice that has baffled me for years."
management work wsj productivity leadership hr humanresources theory essay
-
20 Oct 08
-
akamarckThe classic performance review actually undermines excellence, argues Samuel Culbert, a professor at the UCLA Anderson School of Management in Los Angeles. "To my way of thinking, a one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysf
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.