I have a problem. (No comments from the peanut gallery)
It's the time of year where I have to conduct due diligence for performance reviews. The problem that I have is that I am not quite sure what to do.
In the world that I came from there was a stringent process, clearly laid out criteria for ratings, well-communicated guidelines on how to conduct a good review, and consistent in -your-face communication on the process.
But as we've all established, I'm not in that world anymore. Ironically, one of my very first blog posts was about the performance review system of the firm that I came from. As my wife says, "when are you ever going to be happy?"
Other than my perception of the process, I have another problem. How do you rate consultants when people are doing a job and not necessarily planning a career? What do you do with the person that is technically competent and demonstrates that he/she can get things done? One view is that this is what should be expected. Another view is asking how technically competent and how effective are they at getting things done.
At performance review time (and probably any other time where decisions are made), decisions are made on a relative basis. What I mean is that decisions are made based on how people are related to one another. So how in the world do you measure two people that may be technically competent in each of their areas of expertise that may be totally unrelated to each other? And would each of them ever exceed expectations if that's what they are expected to do anyway?
Here's my other problem. I think too many performance feedback sessions are done through the lens of the what the reviewer believes the person being reviewed should be - which is usually a likeness of the reviewer. I'm smart enough to know that nobody in their right mind wants to be like me -- regardless of title. Feedback should be done with an understanding of the person being reviewed and it should line up with whatever they think their career plans are. In the world of management consulting, that may or may not necessarily mean becoming a Partner.
Do I have an answer for how to fix all this? Yes and no. Nobody is every truly happy with a performance review process. But there are ways to mitigate the b*tching. People are the most important asset that services organizations have. You would think a lot of thought would go into how those people are evaluated so that they can become better going forward.
It's the time of year where I have to conduct due diligence for performance reviews. The problem that I have is that I am not quite sure what to do.
In the world that I came from there was a stringent process, clearly laid out criteria for ratings, well-communicated guidelines on how to conduct a good review, and consistent in -your-face communication on the process.
But as we've all established, I'm not in that world anymore. Ironically, one of my very first blog posts was about the performance review system of the firm that I came from. As my wife says, "when are you ever going to be happy?"
Other than my perception of the process, I have another problem. How do you rate consultants when people are doing a job and not necessarily planning a career? What do you do with the person that is technically competent and demonstrates that he/she can get things done? One view is that this is what should be expected. Another view is asking how technically competent and how effective are they at getting things done.
At performance review time (and probably any other time where decisions are made), decisions are made on a relative basis. What I mean is that decisions are made based on how people are related to one another. So how in the world do you measure two people that may be technically competent in each of their areas of expertise that may be totally unrelated to each other? And would each of them ever exceed expectations if that's what they are expected to do anyway?
Here's my other problem. I think too many performance feedback sessions are done through the lens of the what the reviewer believes the person being reviewed should be - which is usually a likeness of the reviewer. I'm smart enough to know that nobody in their right mind wants to be like me -- regardless of title. Feedback should be done with an understanding of the person being reviewed and it should line up with whatever they think their career plans are. In the world of management consulting, that may or may not necessarily mean becoming a Partner.
Do I have an answer for how to fix all this? Yes and no. Nobody is every truly happy with a performance review process. But there are ways to mitigate the b*tching. People are the most important asset that services organizations have. You would think a lot of thought would go into how those people are evaluated so that they can become better going forward.
Comments
Post a Comment