There’s no question that discussing expectations and coaching and feedback should be a routine and ongoing process. And some managers—the great ones, the naturals—do these things routinely. But managers such as this are few and atypical. Left to their own devices, too many people with manager titles will give the goal-setting and feedback requirements short shrift. They’ll stick it on the “when I get around to it” pile.
That’s why we need a formal process. Sure, the ideal is to have an environment of constant feedback and communication. But an environment like that is rare. That’s why it’s important to require managers to—at a minimum—discuss goals and expectations with each staffer at the start of the year, and then, at year’s end, evaluate just how well that person has done.
Reliability and validity are certainly worthwhile concerns about performance appraisals, and much of the research in academic journals focuses on the problems and deficiencies here. But academics tend to make a much bigger deal of this issue than practitioners do. No argument—reliability and validity are important. But companies aren’t psychology research labs. The question to which every employee wants the answer is, “Boss, how am I doing?” While on an organization-wide basis the overall reliability and validity may not meet the rigorous standards of academia, on an individual basis, if people are getting the straight scoop from their boss on their performance, that’s OK.
Don’t forget what a performance appraisal is. A performance appraisal is a formal record of a supervisor’s opinion of the quality of an employee’s work. Opinion is the operant word here, and if that opinion can’t meet exacting tests of reliability and validity, that’s OK. We’re trying to run a business here, not write a Ph.D. dissertation.
But there is some good news here. Many companies are genuinely concerned with increasing reliability and validity and are setting up calibration meetings or “rater reliability” sessions. In these meetings, supervisors review with each other the performance appraisal ratings they’re planning to give their subordinates before they actually hand them out. They check each other’s intended ratings before they’re made final in order to assure that people who work for different supervisors are held to similar standards and that there’s a level playing field for all.
About the Author
Dick Grote is a management consultant in Dallas, Texas and the author of several books. His most recent book, How to Be Good at Performance Appraisals, was published by the Harvard Business Review Press in July 2011.
