Performance reviews: A constructive critique

The results are in If your company is only giving feedback at your annual performance review, it’s doing it wrong. After years of getting a bad rap, these assessments are being rethought, revised, and revamped to be a more productive review of an employee’s achievements and goals, instead of an [ill-fitting, squishy, biased assessment]( that, more often than not, people just end up resenting. The biggest problem with performance reviews is how subjective they are, affected by the stereotypes and biases of assessors. But they’re impacted by external factors as well. As companies start shifting their employees back into the office, the notion of “[proximity bias](” has come into play—the idea that employees who interact face-to-face with their bosses are likely to get more favorable reviews than their remote colleagues. Reviews are meant to be a scaffolding for employers to benchmark progress, and for employees to share their aspirations. But companies can do so much better. Let’s assess. 🐦 [Tweet this]( 🌐 [View this email on the web]( [Quartz Weekly Obsession] Performance reviews January 05, 2022 The results are in --------------------------------------------------------------- If your company is only giving feedback at your annual performance review, it’s doing it wrong. After years of getting a bad rap, these assessments are being rethought, revised, and revamped to be a more productive review of an employee’s achievements and goals, instead of an [ill-fitting, squishy, biased assessment]( that, more often than not, people just end up resenting. The biggest problem with performance reviews is how subjective they are, affected by the stereotypes and biases of assessors. But they’re impacted by external factors as well. As companies start shifting their employees back into the office, the notion of “[proximity bias](” has come into play—the idea that employees who interact face-to-face with their bosses are likely to get more favorable reviews than their remote colleagues. Reviews are meant to be a scaffolding for employers to benchmark progress, and for employees to share their aspirations. But companies can do so much better. Let’s assess. 🐦 [Tweet this]( 🌐 [View this email on the web]( Department of jargon [Forced distribution:]( The process of rating employee performance along a bell curve [Crowdsourced reviews:]( Assessments that are done collectively by a team [360:]( A crowdsourced review that incorporates insights from an employee’s subordinates and peers [Radical candor:]( Direct, honest feedback and criticism, ideally delivered from a place of care [Experience bias:]( The (incorrect) tendency to believe our own interpretations of the world constitute the whole, objective truth [SMART goals:]( A popular framework for setting objectives (the acronym stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-Bound) Giphy Origin story Military ranking goes corporate --------------------------------------------------------------- Humans have been judging each other for a long time, but the performance review as we know it only [dates back to World War II](. Inspired in part by how the US Army ranked its high-potential soldiers, corporate workplaces adopted structured appraisal systems to help managers make defensible decisions around pay. Employers quickly realized that pay was not the only factor motivating performance—job satisfaction and confidence, among others, played a role. It wasn’t long before an accountability and growth-focused appraisal system became firmly entrenched in corporate offices around the world. For a while, performance reviews went back and forth on the degree to which they focused on supporting development, depending on how much [of a financial crunch the company was facing](. But by the early-2010s, starting with a wave of tech companies, performance reviews began to be replaced with newer approaches, including more regular conversations tied to projects or specific goals. One survey found just 54% of companies [still use annual reviews](, compared to 82% in 2016. Quotable “Either the Performance Review has very low self-awareness, or it is deliberately trying to prevent meaningful change.” —[Lila MacLellan in “The Performance Review gets its annual performance review”]( Brief history [1980s:]( Jack Welch sets the standard for corporate performance reviews, later criticized as problematic, when he introduces “forced ranking” at GE. [2012:]( Adobe is one of the first in a wave of tech companies to drop annual performance reviews in favor of regular check-ins. [2012:]( A New York Times restaurant critic delivers a crushing, instantly viral review made up entirely of questions about Guy Fieri’s new Times Square restaurant. [2015:]( An exposé, also by the New York Times, reveals how Amazon invites employees to send secret feedback on their colleagues. [2019:]( In a bid to salvage its deteriorating public reputation, Facebook says performance review bonuses will now be determined by employees’ efforts to “advance social causes.” [2021:]( In a series of sweeping moves, including banning political discussions on company platforms, software company Basecamp bans 360 reviews for being overly positive “performative busywork.” YouTube Watch this! Don’t hold back --------------------------------------------------------------- As many organizations transition to a hybrid work environment, it may be tempting for managers to forgo face-to-face check-ins for direct messages and interactions on Slack. But reviews can have far-reaching repercussions. Take a note from Ron Swanson on NBC’s Parks and Recreation, who said after a day of reviewing vegetable farms and frozen yogurt bars: “If you believe in something, you sign your name to it.” Charted The rise of the middle manager --------------------------------------------------------------- [A line graph showing the increase of middle managers from 2015 to 2020, with a slight dip from 2019 to 2020, most likely related to the covid pandemic.] What’s remained steady about performance reviews is the growth of middle managers, and the ballooning amount of time spent evaluating and giving feedback. But it turns out that most people don’t like having to spend ages judging each other, and have those judgments be tied to people’s livelihoods. Managers and employees who hated how the process boxed in their work, potential, and aspirations have agitated for things to change. Reuters/Mario Anzuoni Pop quiz What share of workers say reviews inspire improvement? 27%5%14%52% Correct. As a 2019 Gallup poll points out, performance reviews don’t even meet the efficacy levels for FDA drug approval. Incorrect. Your response is less than satisfactory. If your inbox doesn’t support this quiz, find the solution at bottom of email. Giphy The way we ☑️ now A world without performance reviews --------------------------------------------------------------- During the height of the coronavirus lockdowns in 2020, only 5% of US companies surveyed by McKinsey canceled or postponed their reviews. And only about [a third]( said they had adjusted their reviews to reflect challenges from the pandemic. In an analysis for Quartz, Glassdoor looked at reviews of UK companies between Jan. 1, 2019 and Dec. 9, 2021, and found that while mentions of performance reviews had fallen, those that did mention them were doing so more negatively. “Employees have generally been dissatisfied when talking about performance reviews, citing the lack of formal processes, accuracy, or constructive criticism in reviews received. However, sentiment became even more negative after the pandemic began, possibly reflecting an overall decline in satisfaction with workplace management,” says Lauren Thomas, an economist at the employer review site (meta!). HR professionals worry that doing away with annual performance reviews lets absent-minded managers off the hook. That concern is a self-interested one. Peter Cappelli and Anna Tavis [wrote in the Harvard Business Review]( that “many of the processes and systems that HR has built over the years revolve around those performance ratings.” Still, have some sympathy. Trying to figure out how to align employee and employer goals, reward performance, and manage poor performers in a legally defensible way becomes a lot trickier when you remove the structured annual review. Fun fact! In 1883, actor John Ritchie was “[demoralized by tomatoes](” after a bad performance at a theater in Hempstead, New York. The event, documented in the New York Times, is the first reference of rotten vegetables—plus a few spoiled eggs—being used to review a stage act. Reuters/Catherine Benson Poll What kind of performance review works best for you? [Click here to vote]( Do away with them!Regular check-ins, pleaseSave the annual review 💬 let's talk! In last week’s poll about how much you learned from [Obsessions]( in 2021, 73% of you said you learned a lot (yay!), 20% said you didn’t, and 7% are just tired of learning. ✏️ [What did you think of today’s email?](mailto:obsession%2Bfeedback@qz.com?cc=&subject=Thoughts%20about%20performance%20reviews%20&body=) 💡 [What should we obsess over next?](mailto:obsession%2Bideas@qz.com?cc=&subject=Obsess%20over%20this%20next.&body=) 🎲 [Show me a random Obsession]( Today’s email was written by Quartz talent lab editor [Jackie Bischof]( (has a folder containing her 12 performance reviews over six years at Quartz), edited by [Morgan Haefner]( (isn’t sure how she’d respond to a Ron Swanson tirade), and produced by [Jordan Weinstock]( (is performing badly at coming up with a review joke). [facebook]([twitter]([external-link]( The correct answer to the quiz is 14%. Enjoying the Quartz Weekly Obsession? [Send this link]( to a friend! Want to advertise in the Quartz Weekly Obsession? Send us an email at ads@qz.com. Not enjoying it? No worries. [Click here]( to unsubscribe. Quartz | 675 Avenue of the Americas, 4th Fl | New York, NY 10011 | United States