Let’s be honest here. We’ve known for quite some time that the dreaded “performance review” doesn’t work. I think companies keep doing them out of tradition. It doesn’t improve anything and what they mostly do is shatter the subordinates ego. It’s corporate burocratic crap to supposedly motivate the subordinates, but that’s the last thing they accomplish.
Samuel L Culbert of the Wall Street Journal explains:
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.
He offers seven reasons why they don’t work and offers a solution: Performance preview. He explains:
The alternative to one-side-accountable, boss-administered/subordinate-received performancereviews is two-side, reciprocally accountable, performance previews.
Let me explain.
The boss’s assignment is to guide, coach, tutor, provide oversight and generally do whatever is required to assist a subordinate to perform successfully. That’s why I claim that the boss-direct report team should be held jointly accountable for the quality of work the subordinate performs. I’m sick and tired of hearing about subordinates who fail and get fired, while bosses, whose job it was to ensure subordinate effectiveness, get promoted and receive raises in pay.
I wish that every manager, boss, HR people, and any company that uses an org chart read this. God bless The Wall Street Journal for publishing this. I hope the idea catches on.
Found at Give Me Something To Read