Your verdict is in on annual reviews

This one is ugly.

AJC business columnist Matt Kempner asked readers to take on informal online poll to grade the quality of annual performance reviews at their work. He has a new column out about why some companies are ditching traditional reviews and even performance scores.

20150827_115358Nearly half those who took the AJC poll said the performance management system at their work is just OK, but doesn’t inspire them to do even better.

It gets worse. Roughly, the same number of people said the system at their work is awful and worse than doing nothing.

Ouch.

Only about 5 percent of the more than 300 people who took the survey say evals at their work accurately measure the value of their contributions and inspires them to greater job performance.

Check out Kempner’s column on myAJC.com about just how some big employers are trying to change things and avoid evals that one HR consultant compared to a visit to the dentist.

Reader Comments 0

5 comments
mwhite2k
mwhite2k

The biggest problem I see with static reviews is that all too often, the employee doesn't see them as constructive performance evaluations, but rather as scheduled compensation increases. Thus, if no raise is offered, the employee feels jilted, and things unravel from there. It's time to end this practice.

steveatl
steveatl

They seem to cause more harm then good, in my opinion. A good manager keeps tabs of employees regularly with one on one meetings. The annual reviews are often political and too subjective. If someone is doing really well, promote them or give them a good raise. If someone is underperforming, try to correct the behavior or setup a performance plan.

styymy
styymy

@steveatl That would be too simple. And as simple as it is, corporate hr, managers and the culture would find a way to muck that up too.