I’ve been pretty clear that I think performance reviews — as we have them built now — are a terrible idea. Everyone hates them with the passion of a thousand suns, and they add almost zero value to the organization, particularly from a proactive standpoint. (I understand they are sometimes used as a defense / covering one’s ass / paper trail. While this does add value in a twisted kind of way, it’s just not very noble.)
The goal here isn’t to destroy a touchpoint, however. We don’t want to leave a performance review shaped-hole.
That time can be made very useful… if we reclaim that space.
First, we must get rid of the weakness-focused mentality that drives reviews now. Then, we can repurpose that conversation time and expand it into something that is proactive, adds real value, and — gasp! — can be an enjoyable experience for both sides.
To that end, here are two suggestions to start making your review process better:
First, switch the direction.
Instead of being the one evaluating, let your organization evaluate you.
This is called measuring engagement, and it’s one of the most important things an organization can do. (By the way, my partners and I have a great way to measure this; please get in touch if we can help you.)
Most of the way we work isn’t taught, it’s caught. Model the behavior that’s desired, and it will trickle down. (For more on this point and why it’s so essential, please check out a great post from Bruce Johnson.)
Second, pretend you’re a coach.
Imagine you are coaching a basketball team. On the first day, you come in to welcome the players. You then let them go about their business (practicing, or whatever it is teams do) and check back in a year later to give them their performance review — being sure to inform them of all the things they’ve been doing wrong the whole time.
Terrible idea, right?
Do I really need to explain the analogy here?
It would be ludicrous to coach this way. Why do we think this method would create great performance in our organizations?
Engagement is about creating space for regular conversations — they don’t necessarily need to be long, drawn-out, epic talks. Just ways to check in. After a play, during a play, tips, tricks, constant feedback, continual improvement.
If you are a coach, not a “manager,” it’s the most natural behavior in the world.
//
Over a decade ago, two authors by the names of Marcus Buckingham and Don Clifton wrote an amazing book called Now, Discover Your Strengths.
At the very end of this book, hidden behind the database of strengths themes, there is a small section devoted to providing structural ideas for how to design a better organization. In this chapter, the authors mention something I’ve never forgotten—the idea of “building more ladders.”
Right now in our companies, we have essentially one ladder. One path up.
While we inherently understand that this doesn’t make any sense—not everyone wants to be a CEO—we persist in structuring our companies like everyone does.
Much better, I think, to design an organizational structure that provides many ladders.
In fact, what’s stopping us from having as many ladders as we need?
//
At work, the more “experience” the better. Most job postings even list a certain number of years a person has to have in that field before even applying for the opening.
A small part of this makes sense. There are certain things we can only learn from experience.
But most of it — especially the time requirement — is absolutely ridiculous.
When we’re learning something in school, is it our amount of “experience” with something that dictates how well we understand it? Do we judge a student’s success on how long it takes them to figure out how to do a math problem? Do we laud those who had to spend more time in 3rd grade?
“Timmy is our best student — he’s spent 4 years learning the quadratic equation.”
In a learning environment like school, we would find this mindset absolutely absurd.* Backwards. In education, we associate intelligence with speed. How quickly a person can absorb something is a sign of their natural talent and proclivity for that subject. But at work, we assume the opposite… all the time.
Do people need experience? Sure, but not everybody needs the same amount. People learn at different rates and in different styles. Slapping a number of prerequisite years on a job posting is mostly laziness.
How does your organization measure experience? Could it be time to re-think the definition…?
//
*Hm… makes me wonder what kind of environment we have at work.
//
Copyright © 2005-2012 Josh Allan Dykstra
