I’ve been reading about how important it is from a legal standpoint to give accurate performance appraisals, and when I look over ours, I know we’re not doing that—basically everyone is “good” or “excellent,” even though managers complain about poor workers. I know we’re going to get in trouble if we fire any of these people. What can we do to get this system back on track? And how do we encourage managers to give lower ratings to people who have always been “good”? — Anonymous HR Manager in Red Bluff
10 Tips for Effective, Legal Performance Appraisals
Don’t let your performance appraisals fall by the wayside. Learn how to make them effective and legal with our exclusive White Paper, 10 Tips for Effective, Legal Performance Appraisals.
Well, you are not alone. The situation you outline is a very common one. It is so much easier to be the “nice guy” and not say anything negative, even if an employee’s job performance is really becoming a problem. My experience says these situations are not going to improve and will probably worsen if nothing is done to correct them. And this is not just a legal problem; it is a morale and productivity problem.
Most of the time, employees know when they are performing below expectations. If they think they can get away with it and still get a good performance review, they will have no incentive to improve. They will often assume that their manager does not care. This just creates a continuing downward spiral.
Besides managerial reluctance to give negative reviews, the most common traps that those doing performance reviews fall into are:
The “Halo” Effect. This occurs when an employee has extremely impressive performance in one area, and the appraiser gives the same rating to all other aspects of job performance. One technique for avoiding this tendency is to evaluate all employees reporting to you on the same performance factor and then go back and rate all on the next factor, and so on.
The “Pitchfork” Effect. This occurs when the appraiser rates all areas of performance negatively because there is a problem in one area.
The “Central” Tendency. Some appraisers avoid extreme ratings and concentrate on staying in the middle. Remember that all people have stronger and weaker areas of performance.
The “Recency” Tendency. This happens when the appraiser relies too heavily on a recent, dramatic event, be it good or bad. Frequent follow-up meetings with the employee and keeping personal notes can help prevent this.
Length of Service Bias. This occurs when the appraiser assumes an employee is continuing to perform well simply because of his or her length of experience in the job. Consider how the person is responding to changes and new information. Don’t assume the employee continues to remain motivated.
Lack of Honesty. Some appraisers would rather avoid conflict than confront an employee with information that might cause tension or defensiveness. This can be a disservice to the employee. If the performance areas are not targeted for improvement, the employee will not have the opportunity to excel.
The “Stingy” Bias. A stingy appraiser feels that no employee can live up to his or her high standards. Make performance objectives and standards realistically achievable.
The “Competitive” Bias. A competitive appraiser is unable to separate his or her own performance rating or job standards from those assigned to the employee. So, keep in mind that the employees you supervise hold jobs that are different from your own and should be evaluated only on how well they carry out their own responsibilities.
How You Can Get Better Reviews
Part of the answer to this appraisal honesty question may depend on how much you want to participate in changing the process. Just for starters, one thing you could do is whenever managers complain about an employee’s performance is to send them a copy of the performance review and ask them what they would change.
Another suggestion that a lot of managers find very helpful is a simple one. They can make a file for each of their employees that they keep in a handy though confidential place. Ask them to jot a quick note every time something happens, good or bad, and drop it in the file. Then, when it is time to do the performance review, they have a catalog of items to include. Of course, that does not directly address the problem of saying something negative in the performance review, but it generally does facilitate the review process.
Another way to address the issue is to hold managers accountable in their own performance evaluations for the quality, accuracy, and timing of the reviews they perform on their employees. This will certainly get their attention.
Training Is Key
However, what I have found most helpful is to train managers on how and why to do accurate performance reviews. I would include a video on the legal aspects of doing performance reviews to make sure they understand the risks they take if their review is not accurate.
Also, have some thought-provoking questions for the supervisors like:
How much time do you spend redoing an employee’s work?
How frustrated do you get when an employee performs poorly?
Does that make more work for you?
How often does that occur?
Is the overall performance of your employees improving or declining?
In my experience, the appraisal process is not going to change quickly. A carrot and stick approach of holding the supervisor accountable is probably the most realistic way to address the situation. You could also offer to sit in with managers on an employee review and help guide and coach the conversation to be more candid and realistic. The more managers feel that you are working with them, the more time, energy, and honesty they will generally invest in the process. Of course, the more energy top management invests, the more it will occur elsewhere in the organization.
Rhoma Young is founder and head of HR consulting firm Rhoma Young & Associates in Oakland.