THAT Time of Year Again…

No, not the “Holidays.” I refer here to the season when most companies, and many other employers, begin the Annual Review process, one of the most universally hated rituals in the working world. I’ve never met anyone who doesn’t have at least one horror story to tell about annual reviews, and I’ve met very few people who’ve ever had a completely positive experience with the process. Even allowing for the fact that the review is intended to address long-term bad habits, it still seems outrageous that a basic function of day-to-day management has devolved into this sort of quagmire. It makes you wonder if anyone out there remembers what these reviews are supposed to do, doesn’t it?

First off, an annual review is supposed to provide the employee with feedback about their overall performance for the previous year. Unfortunately, this requires managers to keep track of how their subordinates are performing over the course of the year. Since management personnel for the most part believe that they will receive the same salary whether they do this or not, many of them don’t; they will just use whatever vague memories they have of the year, often colored by the last interaction with the employee they can remember. As a result, many people have learned that all they have to do is perform well in the first few weeks of June each year, and their review is a breeze.

Second, the review is supposed to correct long-term bad habits. Not actual mistakes or infractions, which should be dealt with as they occur, but simply things that either irritate fellow workers or lead to lower efficiency. Too often, a review will turn into a “slam session” as the manager vents his or her anger regarding everything the employee has done wrong over the previous 12 months. One manager of my acquaintance was actually keeping a “secret discipline file” in which he would catalog everything his subordinates did that he felt was wrong or annoying. However, he only mentioned this file when trying to bring people into line (“That’s going in the file!”), and only shared the contents during the annual reviews. Or sometimes, at a review two or three years later.

Third, the review is supposed to deal with any discrepancies between the employee’s written job description and what they are actually being asked to do. Job descriptions are another in a long list of business documents that, like mission statements, operating philosophies, and the like, are more often ignored or misapplied than actually used correctly. In many cases, a job description is only used during the hiring process or when an employee is refusing to do something. When used properly, however, a set of job descriptions should tell the reader everything the unit does, and which employees are responsible for which tasks – in other words, everything you would need to know to operate or even reproduce the unit in question. It in turn forms the basis of operating plans, company regulations, strategic planning cycles, and orientation for both the management personnel and those they supervise.

All too often, however, these descriptions are simply rubber stamped by both management and the employees, and completely ignored. Done properly, a review should include a statement written by the employee detailing their current duties and the procedures they follow to complete those duties, which should then be compared to the written job description during the meeting with their supervisor, and either the duties or the description modified to bring them into agreement. An employee should also have the opportunity to comment on their own performance and any other relevant issues during the written and verbal review process. The manager should read this self-assessment before starting the actual review meeting, and be prepared to address the employee’s concerns as well as voicing their own.

Finally, the employee and the manager should discuss any improvement in performance that appears to be necessary, and any changes in job description that appear to be needed. The manager needs to use this process to provide recognition for good work (see my posts on the Hierarchy of Needs and Level 4: Recognition) and, if at all possible, reward for good performance where applicable. At least, that’s how this process is supposed to work. Next time we’ll go over some examples of what happens when it doesn’t…