The traditional view within HR circles is that some formal recordkeeping is needed to legally defend employment decisions. HR also knows from experience that if they don’t put a formal process in place that there are some managers who would never speak to employees, let alone work with them to achieve higher levels of performance.

Maybe we would get better organizational results if we tried to solve those two problems, rather than continuing to invest time and resources into perpetuating a tool that . . . well . . . is ineffective.

Unfortunately, the simple answer is I don’t know. The pilot was viewed as very successful, but for political reasons (mainly) the system was not utilized after that. So we will never know about the true impact in the pilot organization.

We make the system available commercially now, as Birches Group Community™. Hopefully we will be able to assess the effectiveness in a few years.

Warren

With the tool you described, the organization also has a defensible argument for getting rid of the “poor performers,” the bell curve for distributing pay increases and bonuses, and a tool “liked” enough by all to encourage compliance.

But thinking about the science I mentioned in the post, I wonder . . . did it improve performance? I love the fact that it created rich discussions, but did it create ongoing discussions? Assuming, as the research tells us, that feedback doesn’t improve performance, did it tap the intrinsic motivation and passion required to achieve collaboratively created performance goals?

If so, then you have a powerful tool!

Great post. We all know performance appraisal is a dreaded process which is largely ineffective. And efforts to use the latest technology results in highly efficient, automated processes which still don’t work (but are faster and easier to use!).

If I may, a little story. Several years ago, one of my colleagues was tasked with designing a new performance appraisal system for one of the world’s largest and most diverse employers. He interviewed about 1,500 staff members, at all levels of the organization, across the globe.

During the interview, he asked a simple question to each staff member: “Do you like the performance appraisal system?” Universally, the answer was no. He then asked a follow-up question: “Do you know who the good and bad performers are?” The answer was a resounding YES!

While the range of replies varied, and the sentiment was expressed in many different ways depending on country, level and job role, when the data was analyzed, there was an amazing consistency in the replies. It seems that good performers are those for which the following four questions can be answered yes:

1) Do you have good ideas?
2) Do you listen and adapt those ideas to your customers’ needs?
3) Do you work well with other members of the team?
4) Can you be counted on to deliver results?

Think about it. If the answers to those questions were all yes for someone in your company, would that individual be considered a good performer?

We took these insights and built a performance appraisal system which is anchored by these four questions. In a pilot test across 80 countries, using 360 input from employees, managers, peers and outside customers, the results after a 6 week period were compelling:

- 85% compliance with the performance appraisal process (as opposed to under 25% for the former system)
- A nearly perfect bell curve, without the need to calibrate the results
- The ability to view results by workgroup, job level, country, self, manager, peers and numerous other factors
- Successful outreach to both internal and external customers to include their perspectives on performance of the organization’s staff
- Finally (and this is the most amazing result) – a request the following year, from the union leadership, to please use the system again.

Employees and managers liked the approach and found the results to be useful in differentiating performance, helpful in providing constructive feedback, and a strong base for rich performance discussions between managers and their subordinates.

Warren