Performance Reviews Vs. Performance Reveals
A lot of people do not like performance reviews. Many times it is the anticipation of bad news that can cause anxiety in the individual. The fear of the unknown can overwhelm people.
That’s the problem. Nothing that is discussed in a performance review should be unknown.
That is why they are called performance reviews – NOT performance reveals!
Performance Review or Reveal?
Reactions To A Performance Reveal
When people are surprised by the content of their performance reviews they react in many ways and none of them are productive. Some of these reactions are easy to identify because the person will give you immediate feedback. Anger, arguing and shock are usually easy to recognize.
Other people nod their heads and say very little – until they are with their peers. This is never a good discussion and often effects everyone they run into. When this happens the leader loses the trust and confidence of not one individual but the whole team.
In either case, employee engagement suffers. A performance reveal can quickly change an engaged team member into a person who is not engaged or actively disengaged.
The actively disengaged people are the scariest ones because they are the ones who are working against the organization either overtly or passive aggressively.
3 Causes Of A Performance Reveal
- Infrequent Feedback: Too often the leader has not provided the person with frequent coaching. Human nature tells us that no news is good news. If a person hears nothing from the coach, then they assume all is well.
- Lack Of Follow-up: Sometimes a person may have been coached on areas but there was little follow-up. If they hear it once or twice and never hear it again, then the coaching will lack impact and/or the importance of the topic will be diminished.
- Vague Coaching: Some leaders will make suggestions throughout the year but won’t speak with candor or clarity. This is the leader’s attempt to soften his coaching or to avoid confrontation.
Problems arise when an issue appears in black and white on a performance review and surprises the team member. Without frequency, follow-up and clarity, in his coaching the leader will likely be performing a performance reveal.
Effective Performance Reviews Have No Surprises
If a coach has been engaged with an employee throughout the rating period then there should never be any surprises. The review portion of the discussion would be just that–A REVIEW.
The coaching that took place and the employee’s subsequent behaviors in relation to that coaching should dominate that conversation. In fact, it ends up being just another, yet more in-depth coaching session.
If the leader has done his job throughout the rating period by providing frequent feedback, follow-up and clarity, the review will usually be without fireworks. If conflict does occur, the leader has the details ready to remind the employee of past coaching because proper follow-up occurred throughout.
Effective Performance Reviews Focus On The Future
I call this the 30/70 rule. When I do a good job of coaching throughout the year, the review of the past should only take up 30% of our time. Why? Because I am reviewing the past not revealing it.
The other 70% of our time that day is spent on looking forward to the year ahead. We develop strategies and tactics for improvement. My goal is to focus on making them better, not on beating them into submission about their past.
When a person knows the coach is focused on their improvement, trust and confidence in the leader is improved not diminished.
The Bottom Line:
A performance review is perhaps the most important time a coach gets with a team member because it is uninterrupted time spent on making that person better.
If the coach or the team member is dreading that time, the cause is probably the poor coaching that occurred throughout that rating cycle.
When I did a poor job of coaching outside of the performance review, the preparation for that review was always harder and the results were always limited.
But, when I was on top of my game as a coach, the preparation was simple, no one was ever surprised, and the results had impact.
Coaching frequency, follow-up and clarity are the keys to eliminating performance reveals that cause disengagement and creating performance reviews that inspire growth and build trust.
Question:
What are some other reasons people are surprised by what they hear in performance reviews?
The “coaching leadership” is often blurred by favoritism. At the time of review, such a leader could invent and reveal performance.
This is most dangerous.
Good point. Favoritism can also destroy the esprit de corps of the team. Leaders need to eliminate personal feelings from the process and focus on real performance measures.
Dave
Good insight (as usual).
Performance reviews have come a long way from the days when it was the “obligatory paragraph.” That’s when supervisors avoided bad news and the courage to confront the brutal realities (full disclosure: I participated in that type culture).
I am pleased by how the practice has evolved and your “70/30” rule is one that should be practiced.
I believe in two critical principles: 1. A surprise on a PR should never occur because, as you say, it should be a continuation of coaching.
2. The employee should be an active participant in the review, not just a listener. Ongoing coaching is most effective when a true partnership exists. The process should be a mix of affirmation (and celebration) of progress made but equal parts given to performance opportunities identified. Success is apparent when the coaching process and trust developed results in the employee taking the lead in surfacing the performance-and/or- skill gap.
I agree. A leaders should never give some a performance review already completed. It the give and take should occur and then the review finalized.