Blog

Performance reviews are supposed to be an objective evaluation of an employee’s performance, based on measurable criteria.  But how often does that happen? And how often does a job lend itself to actual  objective metrics?

Samual Culbert, a professor in the Anderson School of Management  at UCLA,  is the author of  “Get Rid of the Performance Review!  How Companies Can Stop Intimidating, Start Managing-and Focus on What Really Matters.”

He asserts that performance reviews are subjective and based on how comfortable your boss is with you, not  on how you contribute to overall organizational results.  So you may refrain from criticizing your boss or giving feedback on a better way to accomplish some result, as a way to maintain a harmonious relationship with your boss. In an ideal situation there should be healthy “push-back”  between employees, including bosses and subordinates.  But how often does this actually happen?

We know that the number one reason why employees leave an organization is their boss.  Personality conflicts, and setting unreasonable or ambiguous performance goals or arbitrary metrics can contribute to unhappy employees. So getting a new boss is a way to improve your performance appraisal. Culbert asserts that  a performance preview, where the boss and employee together are responsible  for setting goals and achieving results is an effective alternative for the employee, the boss and he organization.  Bosses are taught to manage employees and to listen to their employees, and employees want that collaboration.

What do you think?