Skip to main content

Performance Appraisals what have we learned in 50 years?

I've got to write my personal Performance Appraisal Goals & Objectives.  So in the process I thought I'd see what experts think about the whole system.  It appears that the system of performance appraisals crossed the chasm back in the 1950s.  Peter Drucker's Management by Objectives (MBO) spurred on this new technique.  Previous to WWII very few companies used this technique, the military did.  Going back even further the Civil Service Commission's system was in place back in 1887  (from Dick Grote's "The Performance Appraisal, Question and Answer Book").


McGregor's 1960 book  "The Human Side of Enterprise"  introduced the Theory X & Theory Y concepts of management. McGregor writes in Harvard Business Review (1957):
  "Effective development of managers, does not include coercing them (no matter how benevolently) into acceptance of the goals of the enterprise, nor does it mean manipulating their behavior to suit organizational needs.  Rather, it calls for creating a relationship within which a man can take responsibility for developing his own potentialities, plan for himself, and learn from putting his plans into action."
 In 1960s General Electric conducted a scientific study of the effectiveness of it's annual appraisal system.  McGregor had singled them out as a company that was using the Theory Y approach.  Yet GE still found their system had concerns.
  • Criticism has a negative effect on achievement of goals.
  • Praise has little effect one way or the other.
  • Performance improves most when specific goals are established.
  • Defensiveness resulting from critical appraisal produces inferior performance.
  • Coaching should be a day-to-day, not a once-a-year activity.
  • Mutual goal setting, not criticism, improves performance.
  • Interviews designed primarily to improve a man's performance should not at the same time weigh his salary or promotion in the balance.
  • Participation by the employee in the goal-setting procedure helps produce favorable results.
  • -- D. Grote, Performance Appraisal, page 4.
Note the language is from the era before equality of the workforce (..."a man's performance"...).



The point on coaching is an interesting one to me.  Assuming that a manager spends a whopping 6 hours a year per person on the performance appraisal, then they have only consumed 0.3% of their time coaching on the performance appraisal.  Tell a manager they will spend 6 hours per person and watch them squirm out of that requirement.  How many system's address performance more than once or twice a year?

See Also:

Management 3.0 #Workout - Feedback Wrap by J. Appelo - "This chapter dives into the solutions for companies that support trust-only work environments. How do you keep connected and increase team collaboration? How can you provide feedback? How can you increase employee engagement?"


Why Leaders Need To Stop Using Performance Reviews by former Disney executive Ken Goldstein. "They are obligatory, perfunctory, dreaded time sucks for both giver and receiver, putting a check mark in an annual rite of passage that is largely ignored until the Earth completes another full orbit around the Sun."

Do we really need performance management? by John Wenger

Get Rid of the Performance Review! by Samuel Culbert

Employee feedback: How to make it less painful - “The first thing I would do is kill the performance appraisal system,” Burbage said. “I 100-percent guarantee you that everyone at your company hates it.”

HBR: Why Your Brain Hates Performance Reviews by Gretchen Gavett

Why Performance Reviews Are a Waste of Time and Money  (Inc.com) Want to help your employees improve their performance? Start by getting rid of traditional evaluations.

What to Do After a Bad Performance Review by Carolyn O'Hara of HBR

Reinventing Performance Management by Marcus BuckinghamAshley Goodall of HBR


3 comments

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?



Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

Elements of an Effective Scrum Task Board

What are the individual elements that make a Scrum task board effective for the team and the leadership of the team?  There are a few basic elements that are quite obvious when you have seen a few good Scrum boards... but there are some other elements that appear to elude even the most servant of leaders of Scrum teams.









In general I'm referring to a physical Scrum board.  Although software applications will replicated may of the elements of a good Scrum board there will be affordances that are not easily replicated.  And software applications offer features not easily implemented in the physical domain also.





Scrum Info Radiator Checklist (PDF) Basic Elements
Board Framework - columns and rows laid out in bold colors (blue tape works well)
Attributes:  space for the total number of stickies that will need to belong in each cell of the matrix;  lines that are not easy eroded, but are also easy to replace;  see Orientation.

Columns (or Rows) - labeled
    Stories
    To Do
    Work In P…

Webinar: Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done, Ready, and NO.

I was invited to participate in a Scrum Alliance Webinar.  Maybe you would like to listen to us in a discussion of techniques to collaborate at scale (remotely and with many people).  The topic is one that I've got some experience in discussions - yet I never seem to get to done...
Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done and Ready and NO for Distributed Teams
With Joel Bancroft-Connors, Agile Organizational Coach; David A. Koontz, Agile Transition Guide; and Luke Hohmann, CEO and Founder of Conteneo, Inc.


14 February 2018 11 a.m. ET (USA).




The Scrum Guide is pretty clear on the criticality of the definition of Done: "When a Product Backlog item or an Increment is described as "Done," everyone must understand what "Done" means. However, the Scrum Guide ALSO says that the definition of Done can "vary significantly per Scrum Team." This leads us to examine when and how the definition of Done should vary, how distributed teams should cr…

A T-Shaped 21st Century Knowledge Worker

Knowledge workers in the 21st Century must have many areas of deep knowledge, while also be capable of collaboration across multiple other domains with dissimilar T-shaped individuals.  This description of a person is a metaphor.  Compare it to the shape of the "I" in the classic saying there is no "I" in Team.


I first read about Scott Ambler's term "Generalizing Specialist" - but it's so hard to remember the proper order of the words... get it backwards and it has an inverted meaning... T-Shaped is easier to remember. 
A generalizing specialist is someone who:
Has one or more technical specialties (e.g. Java programming, Project Management, Database Administration, ...). Has at least a general knowledge of software development. Has at least a general knowledge of the business domain in which they work. Actively seeks to gain new skills in both their existing specialties as well as in other areas, including both technical and domain areas.  General…

A FAILURE to Communicate

I was working with a failing team some time ago.  I use "failing" to describe the outcome of the team - not the people on the team.  Are you OK with that description?



An issue arrose in the stand up - a team member that was to verify the quality of a procedure did so and reported that there were a few records that didn't match expectation in the data set.  Upon inquire the number of records not matching was over 2000.  Most people acknowledged immediately the exaggeration - I could tell by the laughter.  After about 10 minutes of discussing the details of the problem - it appeared the team had a handle on the specific situation.

I stopped the discussion and inquired if they could name the impediment.  One team member did a great job of describing the impediment as a _communication gap_.  Wonderful - I could work with that - the problem had a name and it didn't include anyones Proper Name.

"If the problem has a first name; we are going to have a problem."

I&#…