How does a company decide on the best method of performance appraisal? How do top level managers and others know and trust the information that is given in a performance appraisal?
I crave feedback, but I HATE performance reviews. In most of the companies I have worked for, the performance appraisal was based on one incident or outstanding event that really didn't capture what I did day to day. In one of the worst performance appraisal systems in my career I wasn't even rated on what I did in my job, but on a predetermined set of company goals (most of them dealing with how I interacted and marketed to outside clients) I was an Administrative Assistant and so I didn't interact with outside clients on a regular basis. I dealt with vendors and internal clients.
What if instead of the annual performance appraisal, in every meeting there was a brief survey filled out about the meeting and the roles everyone played. Were the participants prepared? Were they on time? Did they participate / contribute? Were the goals for the meeting reached? Was there progress on projects or have the same 5 projects been on the agenda for the last year? There could even be a brief survey when projects are completed and when one-on-one meetings are held. Those surveys could be entered into a dashboard and compiled so that the annual performance appraisal is a compilation of all these little performance appraisals.
Trends could be watched and when an issue is consistent then correction could take place before the problem worsens. The people that work most closely with individuals would be able to leave immediate feedback and that would eliminate the huge packets that are filled out for 360 degree feedback.
What would some of the drawbacks to instant review be?


No comments:
Post a Comment