Why annual performance reviews often fail and new approaches
1. (Mt) – Why annual performance reviews (traditional strategies) fail?
ASSESSING PERFORMANCE The Performance Management Revolution by Peter Cappelli
and Anna Tavis FROM THE OCTOBER 2016 ISSUE W hen Brian Jensen told his audience of
HR executives that Colorcon wasn’t bothering with annual reviews anymore, they were
appalled. This was in 2002, during his tenure as the drugmaker’s head of global human
resources. In his presentation at the Wharton School, Jensen explained that Colorcon had
found a more effective way of reinforcing desired behaviors and managing performance:
Supervisors were giving people instant feedback, tying it to individuals’ own goals, and
handing out small weekly bonuses to employees they saw doing good things. Back then the
idea of abandoning the traditional appraisal process—and all that followed from it—
seemed heretical. But now, by some estimates, more than one-third of U.S. companies are
doing just that. From Silicon Valley to New York, and in offices across the world, firms are
replacing annual reviews with frequent, informal check-ins between managers and
employees. As you might expect, technology companies such as Adobe, Juniper Systems,
Dell, Microsoft, and IBM have led the way. Yet they’ve been joined by a number of
professional services firms (Deloitte, Accenture, PwC), early adopters in other industries
(Gap, Lear, OppenheimerFunds), and even General Electric, the longtime role model for
traditional appraisals. Without question, rethinking performance management is at the top
of many executive teams’ agendas, but what drove the change in this direction? Many
factors. In a recent article for People + Strategy, a Deloitte manager referred to the review
process as “an investment of 1.8 million hours across the firm that didn’t fit our business
needs anymore.” One Washington Post business writer called it a “rite of corporate kabuki”
that restricts creativity, generates mountains of paperwork, and serves no real purpose.
Others have described annual reviews as a last-century practice and blamed them for a lack
of collaboration and innovation. Employers are also finally acknowledging that both
supervisors and subordinates despise the appraisal process—a perennial problem that feels
more urgent now that the labor market is picking up and concerns about retention have
returned. But the biggest limitation of annual reviews—and, we have observed, the main
reason more and more companies are dropping them—is this: With their heavy emphasis
on financial rewards and punishments and their end-of-year structure, they hold people
accountable for past behavior at the expense of improving current performance and
grooming talent for the future, both of which are critical for organizations’ long-term
survival. In contrast, regular conversations about performance and development change the
focus to building the workforce your organization needs to be competitive both today and
3. created during World War I to identify poor performers for discharge or transfer. After
World War II, about 60% of U.S. companies were using them (by the 1960s, it was closer to
90%). Though seniority rules determined pay increases and promotions for unionized
workers, strong merit scores meant good advancement prospects for managers. At least
initially, improving performance was an afterthought. And then a severe shortage of
managerial talent caused a shift in organizational priorities: Companies began using
appraisals to develop employees into supervisors, and especially managers into executives.
In a famous 1957 HBR article, social psychologist Douglas McGregor argued that
subordinates should, with feedback from the boss, help set their performance goals and
assess themselves—a process that would build on their strengths and potential. This
“Theory Y” approach to management—he coined the term later on—assumed that
employees wanted to perform well and would do so if supported properly. (“Theory X”
assumed you had to motivate people with material rewards and punishments.) McGregor
noted one drawback to the approach he advocated: Doing it right would take managers
several days per subordinate each year. By the early 1960s, organizations had become so
focused on developing future talent that many observers thought that tracking past
performance had fallen by the wayside. Part of the problem was that supervisors were
reluctant to distinguish good performers from bad. One study, for example, found that 98%
of federal government employees received “satisfactory” ratings, while only 2% got either
of the other two outcomes: “unsatisfactory” or “outstanding.” After running a well-
publicized experiment in 1964, General Electric concluded it was best to split the appraisal
process into separate discussions about accountability and development, given the conflicts
between them. Other companies followed suit. Back to accountability. In the 1970s,
however, a shift began. Inflation rates shot up, and merit-based pay took center stage in the
appraisal process. During that period, annual wage increases really mattered. Supervisors
often had discretion to give raises of 20% or more to strong performers, to distinguish them
from the sea of employees receiving basic cost-of-living raises, and getting no increase
represented a substantial pay cut. With the stakes so high—and with antidiscrimination
laws so recently on the books—the pressure was on to award pay more objectively. As a
result, accountability became a higher priority than development for many organizations.
Three other changes in the zeitgeist reinforced that shift: First, Jack Welch became CEO of
General Electric in 1981. To deal with the long-standing concern that supervisors failed to
label real differences in performance, Welch championed the forcedranking system—
another military creation. Though the U.S. Army had devised it, just before entering World
War II, to quickly identify a large number of officer candidates for the country’s imminent
military expansion, GE used it to shed people at the bottom. Equating performance with
individuals’ inherent capabilities (and largely ignoring their potential to grow), Welch
divided his workforce into “A” players, who must be rewarded; “B” players, who should be
accommodated; and “C” players, who should be dismissed. In that system, development was
reserved for the “A” players —the high-potentials chosen to advance into senior positions.
FURTHER READING Second, 1993 legislation limited the tax deductibility of executive
salaries to $1 million but exempted performance-based pay. That led to a rise in outcome-
based bonuses for corporate leaders—a change that trickled down to frontline managers
4. and even hourly employees—and organizations relied even more on the appraisal process
to assess merit. Reinventing Performance Management Magazine Article by Marcus
Buckingham and Ashley Goodall How Deloitte is rethinking peer feedback and the annual
review, and trying to design a system to fuel improvement Third, McKinsey’s War for Talent
research project in the late 1990s suggested that some employees were fundamentally
more talented than others (you knew them when you saw them, the thinking went).
Because such individuals were, by definition, in short supply, organizations felt they needed
to take great care in tracking and rewarding them. Nothing in the McKinsey studies showed
that fixed personality traits actually made certain people perform better, but that was the
assumption. So, by the early 2000s, organizations were using performance appraisals
mainly to hold employees accountable and to allocate rewards. By some estimates, as many
as one-third of U.S. corporations— and 60% of the Fortune 500—had adopted a forced-
ranking system. At the same time, other changes in corporate life made it harder for the
appraisal process to advance the time-consuming goals of improving individual
performance and developing skills for future roles. Organizations got much flatter, which
dramatically increased the number of subordinates that supervisors had to manage. The
new norm was 15 to 25 direct reports (up from six before the 1960s). While overseeing
more employees, supervisors were also expected to be individual contributors. So taking
days to manage the performance issues of each employee, as Douglas McGregor had
advocated, was impossible. Meanwhile, greater interest in lateral hiring reduced the need
for internal development. Up to twothirds of corporate jobs were filled from outside,
compared with about 10% a generation earlier. Back to development…again. Another major
turning point came in 2005: A few years after Jack Welch left GE, the company quietly
backed away from forced ranking because it fostered internal competition and undermined
collaboration. Welch still defends the practice, but what he really supports is the general
principle of letting people know how they are doing: “As a manager, you owe candor to your
people,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2013. “They must not be guessing about what
the organization thinks of them.” It’s hard to argue against candor, of course. But more and
more firms began questioning how useful it was to compare people with one another or
even to rate them on a scale. So the emphasis on accountability for past performance started
to fade. That continued as jobs became more complex and rapidly changed shape—in that
climate, it was difficult to set annual goals that would still be meaningful 12 months later.
Plus, the move toward team-based work often conflicted with individual appraisals and
rewards. And low inflation and small budgets for wage increases made appraisal-driven
merit pay seem futile. What was the point of trying to draw performance distinctions when
rewards were so trivial? The whole appraisal process was loathed by employees anyway.
Social science research showed that they hated numerical scores—they would rather be
told they were “average” than given a 3 on a 5point scale. They especially detested forced
ranking. As Wharton’s Iwan Barankay demonstrated in a field setting, performance actually
declined when people were rated relative to others. Nor did the ratings seem accurate. As
the accumulating research on appraisal scores showed, they had as much to do with who
the rater was (people gave higher ratings to those who were like them) as they did with
performance. And managers hated doing reviews, as survey after survey made clear. Willis
5. Towers Watson found that 45% did not see value in the systems they used. Deloitte
reported that 58% of HR executives considered reviews an ineffective use of supervisors’
time. In a study by the advisory service CEB, the average manager reported spending about
210 hours—close to five weeks—doing appraisals each year. As dissatisfaction with the
traditional process mounted, high-tech firms ushered in a new way of thinking about
performance. The “Agile Manifesto,” created by software developers in 2001, outlined
several key values—favoring, for instance, “responding to change over following a plan.” It
emphasized principles such as collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular
reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and
responding in real time to customer feedback and changes in requirements. Although not
directed at performance per se, these principles changed the definition of effectiveness on
the job—and they were at odds with the usual practice of cascading goals from the top
down and assessing people against them once a year. So it makes sense that the first
significant departure from traditional reviews happened at Adobe, in 2011. The company
was already using the agile method, breaking down projects into “sprints” that were
immediately followed by debriefing sessions. Adobe explicitly brought this notion of
constant assessment and feedback into performance management, with frequent check-ins
replacing annual appraisals. Juniper Systems, Dell, and Microsoft were prominent followers.
CEB estimated in 2014 that 12% of U.S. companies had dropped annual reviews altogether.
Willis Towers Watson put the figure at 8% but added that 29% were considering
eliminating them or planning to do so. Deloitte reported in 2015 that only 12% of the U.S.
companies it surveyed were not planning to rethink their performance management
systems. This trend seems to be extending beyond the United States as well. PwC reports
that two-thirds of large companies in the UK, for example, are in the process of changing
their systems. Three Business Reasons to Drop Appraisals In light of that history, we see
three clear business imperatives that are leading companies to abandon performance
appraisals: The return of people development. Companies are under competitive pressure
to upgrade their talent management efforts. This is especially true at consulting and other
professional services firms, where knowledge work is the offering—and where
inexperienced college grads are turned into skilled advisers through structured training.
Such firms are doubling down on development, often by putting their employees (who are
deeply motivated by the potential for learning and advancement) in charge of their own
growth. This approach requires rich feedback from supervisors—a need that’s better met
by frequent, informal check-ins than by annual reviews. Now that the labor market has
tightened and keeping good people is once again critical, such companies have been trying
to eliminate “dissatisfiers” that drive employees away. Naturally, annual reviews are on that
list, since the process is so widely reviled and the focus on numerical ratings interferes with
the learning that people want and need to do. Replacing this system with feedback that’s
delivered right after client engagements helps managers do a better job of coaching and
allows subordinates to process and apply the advice more effectively. Kelly Services was the
first big professional services firm to drop appraisals, in 2011. PwC tried it with a pilot
group in 2013 and then discontinued annual reviews for all 200,000-plus employees.
Deloitte followed in 2015, and Accenture and KPMG made similar announcements shortly
6. thereafter. Given the sheer size of these firms, and the fact that they offer management
advice to thousands of organizations, their choices are having an enormous impact on other
companies. Firms that scrap appraisals are also rethinking employee management much
more broadly. Accenture CEO Pierre Nanterme estimates that his firm is changing about
90% of its talent practices. The need for agility. When rapid innovation is a source of
competitive advantage, as it is now in many companies and industries, that means future
needs are continually changing. Because organizations won’t necessarily want employees to
keep doing the same things, it doesn’t make sense to hang on to a system that’s built mainly
to assess and hold people accountable for past or current practices. As Susan Peters, GE’s
head of human resources, has pointed out, businesses no longer have clear annual cycles.
Projects are short-term and tend to change along the way, so employees’ goals and tasks
can’t be plotted out a year in advance with much accuracy. At GE a new business strategy
based on innovation was the biggest reason the company recently began eliminating
individual ratings and annual reviews. Its new approach to performance management is
aligned with its FastWorks platform for creating products and bringing them to market,
which borrows a lot from agile techniques. Supervisors still have an end-of-year summary
discussion with subordinates, but the goal is to push frequent conversations with
employees (GE calls them “touchpoints”) and keep revisiting two basic questions: What am I
doing that I should keep doing? And what am I doing that I should change? Annual goals
have been replaced with shorter-term “priorities.” As with many of the companies we see,
GE first launched a pilot, with about 87,000 employees in 2015, before adopting the changes
across the company. The centrality of teamwork. Moving away from forced ranking and
from appraisals’ focus on individual accountability makes it easier to foster teamwork. This
has become especially clear at retail companies like Sears and Gap— perhaps the most
surprising early innovators in appraisals. Sophisticated customer service now requires
frontline and back-office employees to work together to keep shelves stocked and manage
customer flow, and traditional systems don’t enhance performance at the team level or help
track collaboration. Gap supervisors still give workers end-of-year assessments, but only to
summarize performance discussions that happen throughout the year and to set pay
increases accordingly. Employees still have goals, but as at other companies, the goals are
short-term (in this case, quarterly). Now two years into its new system, Gap reports far
more satisfaction with its performance process and the best-ever completion of store-level
goals. Nonetheless, Rob Ollander-Krane, Gap’s senior director of organization performance
effectiveness, says the company needs further improvement in setting stretch goals and
focusing on team performance. Implications. All three reasons for dropping annual
appraisals argue for a system that more closely follows the natural cycle of work. Ideally,
conversations between managers and employees occur when projects finish, milestones are
reached, challenges pop up, and so forth—allowing people to solve problems in current
performance while also developing skills for the future. At most companies, managers take
the lead in setting near-term goals, and employees drive career conversations throughout
the year. In the words of one Deloitte manager: “The conversations are more holistic.
They’re about goals and strengths, not just about past performance.” FURTHER READING
7. Reward candor. And throw away the standard playbook. Perhaps most important,
companies are overhauling performance management because their businesses require the
change. That’s true whether they’re professional services firms that must develop people in
order to compete, companies that need to deliver ongoing performance feedback to support
rapid innovation, or retailers that need better coordination between the sales floor and the
back office to serve their customers. Of course, many HR managers worry: If we can’t get
supervisors to have good conversations with subordinates once a year, how can we expect
them to do so more frequently, without the support of the usual appraisal process? It’s a
valid question—but we see reasons to be optimistic. As GE found in 1964 and as research
has documented since, it is extraordinarily difficult to have a serious, open discussion about
problems while also dishing out consequences such as low merit pay. The end-of-year
review was also an excuse for delaying feedback until then, at which point both the
supervisor and the employee were likely to have forgotten what had happened months
earlier. Both of those constraints disappear when you take away the annual review.
Additionally, almost all companies that have dropped traditional appraisals have invested in
training supervisors to talk more about development with their employees—and they are
checking with subordinates to make sure that’s happening. Moving to an informal system
requires a culture that will keep the continuous feedback going. As Megan Taylor, Adobe’s
director of business partnering, pointed out at a recent conference, it’s difficult to sustain
that if it’s not happening organically. Adobe, which has gone totally numberless but still
gives merit increases based on informal assessments, reports that regular conversations
between managers and their employees are now occurring without HR’s prompting.
Deloitte, too, has found that its new model of frequent, informal check-ins has led to more
meaningful discussions, deeper insights, and greater employee satisfaction. (For more
details, see “Reinventing Performance Management,” HBR, April 2015.) The firm started to
go numberless like Adobe but then switched to assigning employees several numbers four
times a year, to give them rolling feedback on different dimensions. Jeffrey Orlando, who
heads up development and performance at Deloitte, says the company has been tracking the
effects on business results, and they’ve been positive so far. Challenges That Persist The
greatest resistance to abandoning appraisals, which is something of a revolution in human
resources, comes from HR itself. The reason is simple: Many of the processes and systems
that HR has built over the years revolve around those performance ratings. Experts in
employment law had advised organizations to standardize practices, develop objective
criteria to justify every employment decision, and document all relevant facts. Taking away
appraisals flies in the face of that advice—and it doesn’t necessarily solve every problem
that they failed to address. Here are some of the challenges that organizations still grapple
with when they replace the old performance model with new approaches: Aligning
individual and company goals. In the traditional model, business objectives and strategies
cascaded down the organization. All the units, and then all the individual employees, were
supposed to establish their goals to reflect and reinforce the direction set at the top. But this
approach works only when business goals are easy to articulate and held constant over the
course of a year. As we’ve discussed, that’s often not the case these days, and employee
goals may be pegged to specific projects. So as projects unfold and tasks change, how do you
8. coordinate individual priorities with the goals for the whole enterprise, especially when the
business objectives are short-term and must rapidly adapt to market shifts? It’s a new kind
of problem to solve, and the jury is still out on how to respond. Rewarding performance.
Appraisals gave managers a clear-cut way of tying rewards to individual contributions.
Companies changing their systems are trying to figure out how their new practices will
affect the pay-forperformance model, which none of them have explicitly abandoned. They
still differentiate rewards, usually relying on managers’ qualitative judgments rather than
numerical ratings. In pilot programs at Juniper Systems and Cargill, supervisors had no
difficulty allocating merit-based pay without appraisal scores. In fact, both line managers
and HR staff felt that paying closer attention to employee performance throughout the year
was likely to make their merit-pay decisions more valid. But it will be interesting to see
whether most supervisors end up reviewing the feedback they’ve given each employee over
the year before determining merit increases. (Deloitte’s managers already do this.) If so,
might they produce something like an annual appraisal score—even though it’s more
carefully considered? And could that subtly undermine development by shifting managers’
focus back to accountability? Identifying poor performers. Though managers may assume
they need appraisals to determine which employees aren’t doing their jobs well, the
traditional process doesn’t really help much with that. For starters, individuals’ ratings
jump around over time. Research shows that last year’s performance score predicts only
onethird of the variance in this year’s score—so it’s hard to say that someone simply isn’t
up to scratch. Plus, HR departments consistently complain that line managers don’t use the
appraisal process to document poor performers. Even when they do, waiting until the end
of the year to flag struggling employees allows failure to go on for too long without
intervention. We’ve observed that companies that have dropped appraisals are requiring
supervisors to THIS ARTICLE ALSO APPEARS IN: HBR’s 10 Must Reads 2018 + HBR
IdeaCast Audio Interviews Book by Harvard Business Review $49.99 Add to Cart
immediately identify problem employees. Juniper Systems also formally asks supervisors
each quarter to confirm that their subordinates are performing up to company standards.
Only 3%, on average, are not, and HR is brought in to address them. Adobe reports that its
new system has reduced dismissals, because struggling employees are monitored and
coached much more closely. Still, given how reluctant most managers are to single out
failing employees, we can’t assume that getting rid of appraisals will make those tough calls
any easier. And all the companies we’ve observed still have “performance improvement
plans” for employees identified as needing support. Such plans remain universally
problematic, too, partly because many issues that cause poor performance can’t be solved
by management intervention. Avoiding legal troubles. Employee relations managers within
HR often worry that discrimination charges will spike if their companies stop basing pay
increases and promotions on numerical ratings, which seem objective. But appraisals
haven’t prevented discriminatory practices. Though they force managers to systematically
review people’s contributions each year, a great deal of discretion (always subject to bias) is
built into the process, and considerable evidence shows that supervisors discriminate
against some employees by giving them undeservedly low ratings. Leaders at Gap report
that their new practices were driven partly by complaints and research showing that the
9. appraisal process was often biased and ineffective. Frontline workers in retail
(disproportionately women and minorities) are especially vulnerable to unfair treatment.
Indeed, formal ratings may do more to reveal bias than to curb it. If a company has clear
appraisal scores and merit-pay indexes, it is easy to see if women and minorities with the
same scores as white men are getting fewer or lower pay increases. All that said, it’s not
clear that new approaches to Can You Take Cognitive Bias Out of Assessments?
performance management will do much to A classic study by Edward Jones and Victor
Harris in the 1960s demonstrated that people tend to attribute others’ behavior to
character rather than circumstances. getting rid of performance scores increased When a
car goes streaking past us, for instance, we think that the driver is a jerk and ignore the
possibility that there might be an emergency. A good workplace example of this cognitive
bias—known as the “fundamental attribution error”—is to assume that the lowest
performers in any year will always be the worst performers and to fire them as a result.
Such an assumption overlooks the impact of good or poor management, not to mention
business conditions that are beyond employees’ control. information that decision makers
consider. Of course, this model is highly flattering to people who have advanced into
executive roles—“A” players whose success is, by definition, credited to their superior
abilities, not to good fortune. That may be partly why the model has persisted so long in the
face of considerable evidence against it. mitigate discrimination either. Gap has found that
fairness in pay and other decisions, but judgments still have to be made—and there’s the
years most HR information systems were built to move annual appraisals online and
connect them to pay increases, succession planning, and so forth. They weren’t designed to
accommodate continuous feedback, which is one reason many employee check-ins consist
of oral comments, with no documentation. The tech world has responded with apps that
enable supervisors to give feedback anytime and to record it if desired. At General Electric,
the PD@GE app (“PD” stands for “performance development”) allows managers to call up
notes and materials from prior conversations and Even when “A” players seem to perform
well in many contexts (and that’s rarely measured), they may be coasting on the “halo
effect”—another type of bias, akin to self-fulfilling prophecy. If these folks have already
been successful, they receive more opportunities than others, and they’re pushed harder, so
naturally they do better. summarize that information. Employees can use Biases color
individual performance ratings as well. Decision makers may give past behavior too much
weight, for that supervisors can easily review all the the app to ask for direction when they
need it. IBM has a similar app that adds another feature: It enables employees to give
feedback to peers and choose whether the recipient’s boss gets a copy. Amazon’s Anytime
Feedback tool does much the same thing. The great advantage of these apps is instance, or
fall prey to stereotypes when they assign their ratings. discussion text when it is time to
take actions But when you get rid of forced ranking and appraisal scores, you don’t
eradicate bias. Discrimination and faulty assumptions still creep into qualitative
assessments. In some ways the older, more cumbersome performance systems actually
made it harder for managers to keep their blinders on. Formal feedback from various
stakeholders provided some balance when supervisors were otherwise inclined to see only
10. the good things their stars did and failed to recognize others’ contributions. and job
reassignments. Anytime you exercise judgment, whether or not you translate that to
numerical ratings, intuition plays a part, and bias can rear its head. to help or hurt
colleagues. (At Amazon, the such as award merit pay or consider promotions Of course,
being on the receiving end of all that continual coaching could get overwhelming—it never
lets up. And as for peer feedback, it isn’t always useful, even if apps make it easier to deliver
in real time. Typically, it’s less objective than supervisor feedback, as anyone familiar with
360s knows. It can be also “gamed” by employees cutthroat culture encourages employees
to be critical of one another’s performance, and forced ranking creates an incentive to push
others to the bottom of the heap.) The more consequential the peer feedback, the more
likely the problems. Not all employers face the same business pressures to change their
performance processes. In some fields and industries (think sales and financial services), it
still makes sense to emphasize accountability and financial rewards for individual
performers. Organizations with a strong public mission may also be well served by
traditional appraisals. But even government organizations like NASA and the FBI are
rethinking their approach, having concluded that accountability should be collective and
that supervisors need to do a better job of coaching and developing their subordinates.
Ideology at the top matters. Consider what happened at Intel. In a two-year pilot, employees
got feedback but no formal appraisal scores. Though supervisors did not have difficulty
differentiating performance or distributing performance-based pay without the ratings,
company executives returned to using them, believing they created healthy competition and
clear outcomes. At Sun Communities, a manufactured-home company, senior leaders also
oppose eliminating appraisals because they think formal feedback is essential to
accountability. And Medtronic, which gave up ratings several years ago, is resurrecting
them now that it has acquired Ireland-based Covidien, which has a more traditional view of
performance management. Other firms aren’t completely reverting to old approaches but
instead seem to be seeking middle ground. As we’ve mentioned, Deloitte has backpedaled
from giving no ratings at all to having project leads and managers assign them in four
categories on a quarterly basis, to provide detailed “performance snapshots.” PwC recently
made a similar move in its client-services practices: Employees still don’t receive a single
rating each year, but they now get scores on five competencies, along with other
development feedback. In PwC’s case, the pushback against going numberless actually came
from employees, especially those on a partner track, who wanted to know how they were
doing. At one insurance company, after formal ratings had been eliminated, merit-pay
increases were being shared internally and then interpreted as performance scores. These
became known as “shadow ratings,” and because they started to affect other talent
management decisions, the company eventually went back to formal appraisals. But it kept
other changes it had made to its performance management system, such as quarterly
conversations between managers and employees, to maintain its new commitment to
development. It will be interesting to see how well these “third way” approaches work.
They, too, could fail if they aren’t supported by senior leadership and reinforced by
organizational culture. Still, in most cases, sticking with old systems seems like a bad option.
Companies that don’t think an overhaul makes sense for them should at least carefully
11. consider whether their process is giving them what they need to solve current performance
problems and develop future talent. Performance appraisals wouldn’t be the least popular
practice in business, as they’re widely believed to be, if something weren’t fundamentally
wrong with them. A version of this article appeared in the October 2016 issue (pp.58–67) of
Harvard Business Review. Peter Cappelli is the George W. Taylor Professor of Management
at the Wharton School and a director of its Center for Human Resources. He is the author of
several books, including Will College Pay Off? A Guide to the Most Important Financial
Decision You’ll Ever Make (PublicAffairs, 2015). Anna Tavis is a clinical associate professor
of human capital management at New York University and the Perspectives editor at People
+ Strategy, a journal for HR
Follow This Topic Related Topics: Developing Employees | Personnel Policies | Giving
Feedback Comments Leave a Comment Post Comment 18 COMMENTS Asitha
Goonewardena 3 years ago The trend of organizations moving away from traditional
milestone-based long-term assessments models were inspired globally with leading
industrial giants taking the leading role. Though still majority of the organizations are in
favor of the traditional method due to various reasons or rigidity, the transition is
happening with booming of many agile practices in organizations to deliver their services to
market at increasing speed. Traditional approach of goal assessment can be split into
shorter time spans and also allow the users to provide feedback or update the status of the
fulfillment in-the-go rather than formal assessment discussion. Co-workers or leaders refer
to the real-time updates while giving constant feedback and coaching rather than waiting a
year to have a discussion. Good assessment models do not isolate the employee. It creates
an environment for speed, collaboration, appreciation and engagement across the board for
the employee to get inspire and achieve the goals as expected. Ultimately this is what any
organizations would want. Not to criticize the employee at the end of year but rather create
an positive assessment culture that nurture and guide the employee to exceptionally
The Conversation POSTING GUIDELINES We hope the conversations that take place on
HBR.org will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To comment, readers must
sign in or register. And to ensure the quality of the discussion, our moderating team will
review all comments and may edit them for clarity, length, and relevance. Comments that
are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted per the moderators’
judgment. All postings become the property of Harvard Business Publishing. EPG SHRM
Foundation’s Effective Practice Guidelines Series Building a High-Performance Culture: A
Fresh Look at Performance Management By Elaine D. Pulakos, Rose A. Mueller-Hanson,
Ryan S. O’Leary, and Michael M. Meyrowitz Sponsored by Halogen Building a High-
Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance Management This publication is
designed to provide accurate and authoritative information regarding the subject matter
covered. Neither the publisher nor the author is engaged in rendering legal or other
professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a
competent, licensed professional should be sought. Any federal and state laws discussed in
this book are subject to frequent revision and interpretation by amendments or judicial
revisions that may significantly affect employer or employee rights and obligations. Readers
13. created the Effective Practice Guidelines series in 2004 for busy HR professionals. It can be
a challenge for practitioners with limited time to keep up with the latest research results. By
integrating research findings on what works with expert opinion on how to conduct
effective HR practice, this series provides the tools to successfully practice evidencebased
management. Other recent reports include HRM´s Role in Corporate Social and
Environmental Sustainability, Promoting Employee Well-Being and Onboarding New
Employees. This report is the 16th in the series. To ensure the material is research-based,
comprehensive and practical, the reports are written by subject-matter experts and then
reviewed by both academics and practitioners. Each report also includes a “Suggested
Readings” section as a convenient reference tool. All reports are available online for
complimentary download at www.shrmfoundation.org. The Effective Practice Guidelines
series is just one way the SHRM Foundation supports lifelong learning for HR professionals.
In addition to creating educational resources used in hundreds of classrooms worldwide,
the SHRM Foundation is a major funder of original, rigorous HR research. We award more
than $150,000 annually in education and certification scholarships to SHRM members. And
all this good work is made possible by the generous support of donors like you. I encourage
you to learn more. Please visit www.shrmfoundation.org to find out how you can support
the SHRM Foundation. Mary A. Gowan, Ph.D. Chair, SHRM Foundation Research Evidence
Committee Professor of Management Martha and Spencer Love School of Business Elon
University iii Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance
Management ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The SHRM Foundation is grateful for the assistance of
the following individuals in producing this report: CONTENT EDITOR PROJECT MANAGER
Lynn McFarland, Ph.D. President Human Capital Solutions, Inc. Beth M. McFarland, CAE
Manager, Special Projects SHRM Foundation REVIEWERS Robert Cardy, Ph.D. Chair,
Department of Management College of Business University of Texas at San Antonio Carol J.
Cooley, SPHR Vice President of Human Resources Total Community Options Tracye Mayolo,
SPHR AVP of Human Resources Church Street Health Management Major funding for the
Effective Practice Guidelines series is provided by the HR Certification Institute and the
Society for Human Resource Management. v Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh
Look at Performance Management ABOUT THE AUTHORS As vice president of PDRI’s
Systems and Information Technology Services division, Mike Meyrowitz provides business,
technical and strategic leadership to PDRI. Under his leadership, the IT Services division
provides integrated information technology solutions, systems and services in all areas of
human capital management, including performance management. Mr. Meyrowitz has over
15 years of experience in the management, design and development of information systems
supporting the missions of commercial, nonprofit and government organizations. He has
worked with federal government clients such as civilian and Department of Defense
agencies, as well as the intelligence community. Prior to joining PDRI, Mr. Meyrowitz
directed Lockheed Martin’s Internet Applications division. Mr. Meyrowitz holds a Master of
Science in information technology and a Bachelor of Science in business from Virginia Tech.
Mr. Meyrowitz also serves on PDRI’s Board of Directors. Dr. Rose Mueller-Hanson is
director of Leadership and Organizational Development Consulting at PDRI, an SLH
Company, where she leads a team of consultants to conduct applied research in
14. performance management, leadership development and organizational design. She has
presented her work at numerous national conferences and publications and is a co-
recipient (with colleagues from PDRI) of the M. Scott Myers Award for Applied Research in
the Workplace, granted by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Prior to
joining PDRI in 2002, Dr. MuellerHanson worked as a human resource manager for a
nonprofit organization and served in the U.S. Air Force. She received her doctorate in
industrial/organizational psychology from Colorado State University. She currently is the
president of the Personnel Testing Council of Metropolitan Washington, DC. Dr. Ryan
O’Leary is manager of hiring assessment services at PDRI, an SHL Company, where he leads
a team of consultants developing performance management and selection and assessment
programs. He has developed performance management systems for numerous federal
government agencies covering a range of scientific, technical and administrative
occupations. Dr. O’Leary has presented his work at numerous national conferences and has
published on performance management and assessment best practices. He was named a
2011 Game Changer by Workforce Management magazine. Dr. O’Leary holds a doctorate in
industrial/organizational psychology from Auburn University and a Bachelor of Science in
psychology from Emory University. Elaine D. Pulakos is president of PDRI, an SHL Company,
and past president of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. A Fellow of
the American Psychological Association and the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (SIOP), she is a recognized author and speaker, having published numerous
articles, books and best practice guidelines on various talent management topics, most
notably performance management and hiring. Dr. Pulakos earned SIOP’s 2009
Distinguished Professional Contributions Award for career achievement. She has spent her
career consulting with public and private sector organizations to improve their talent
management practices by designing, developing and successfully implementing largescale
hiring, career development, performance management and leadership development
systems in organizations. She received her doctorate in industrial/organizational
psychology from Michigan State University. vii Performance management is the “Achilles’
heel” of human capital management— often viewed as ineffective by employees and
managers alike. Despite the time, effort and resources devoted to it, performance
management rarely achieves its intended purpose—improving performance. Building a
High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance Management BUILDING A HIGH-
PERFORMANCE CULTURE: A FRESH LOOK AT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT Managing
employee performance is a key part of effective leadership. Research has shown that
managers who engage in effective performance management produce extraordinary
business results compared with those who do not. One study demonstrated 50 percent less
staff turnover, 10 to 30 percent higher customer satisfaction ratings, 40 percent higher
employee commitment ratings and double the net profits.1 But many organizations struggle
to realize these benefits. When asked what purpose performance management should serve
in organizations, employees, managers and HR professionals alike cite important outcomes
such as improving performance effectiveness and results, developing employees, and
facilitating communication and information exchange between employees and managers.
However, when a slightly different question is asked—what purpose does performance
15. management serve—the responses are quite different. Most people say that in reality,
performance management serves primarily administrative purposes. These include helping
managers make pay decisions, providing documentation for the organization to defend
itself in court and enabling the organization to deal with poor performers. The Business
Case Effective performance management behavior leads to better: Bottom line results
Employee engagement Retention of key staff When asked, “How well does performance
management work to achieve its purpose?” managers and employees agree: It does not
work very well. Overall, attitudes toward performance management are consistently poor.
No more than 30 percent of those surveyed reported that their performance management
system effectively establishes goals, provides feedback and actually improves performance.
These perceptions have earned performance management the distinction of being the
“Achilles’ heel” of human capital management. 2 After decades of research and practice
devoted to improving performance management systems in organizations, the reality is that
most of them neither drive effective performance and development nor serve
administrative purposes. It is time to take a fresh look. 1 Building a High-Performance
Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance Management Given the current negative perceptions,
should organizations continue to invest in performance management? The answer to this
question is yes! When done right, performance management yields higher levels of
engagement, retention and organizational performance. A strong business case exists for
improving the effectiveness of performance management, but how is this task
accomplished? The key is to change the focus. Concentrate on establishing effective
performance management behaviors first, and then make sure that the performance
management system reinforces and supports those behaviors. Performance management
must be more than a formal appraisal system: It should be an everyday part of a high-
performance culture. This report will offer new ideas for using performance management
tools and concepts more productively to achieve the desired results. It will first examine
what has been tried unsuccessfully in the past and will then present different strategies that
hold real promise for increasing performance management effectiveness. Finally, it will
present a model to help organizations build a high-performance culture through effective
performance management. Common Strategies— and Why They Fail Most performance
management strategies focus on developing improved rating tools and processes—
including various rating formats, different rating criteria, more elaborate process steps and
using raters with disparate points of view. An implicit assumption is that specific tools and
carefully prescribed steps in a formal system will lead to effective performance
management. In the end though, these attempts to improve performance management have
ended up reducing it to an administrative drill that lacks real value.3 Unfortunately,
negative attitudes among managers and employees toward their performance management
systems have spawned the vicious cycle of attempting improvements, followed by
disappointing results, leading to continuous reinvention of these systems. The great amount
of research that has been devoted to performance management without yielding success
speaks volumes about how inherently difficult it is. Figure 2 graphically demonstrates a
common pitfall: Although performance management processes are designed to drive
effective behavior, they more often end up motivating intermittent spurts of activity,
16. spiking a few times a year. This pattern is actually at odds with effective performance
management (see Figure 3), which requires regular and ongoing activity: Figure 1.
Examples of Past Attempts to Improve Performance Management 2 Change what is rated
Objectives, results, individual competencies, behaviors, contributions Change the rating
scale Differentiated 3, 5, 7, or 9-point scales, pass-fail scales, developmental scales or
narratives Change who rates Supervisors, peers, customers or the employees themselves
Change the goals SMART, HARD, cascaded, team, individual or none Building a High-
Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance Management Figure 2. Poor
Performance Management Behavior Set Goals Mid-term Review Final Appraisal Activity
Level High Low Begin Cycle ■■ Communicating expectations on a regular basis. ■■
Providing feedback in real time whenever exceptional or poor performance is observed.
■■ Helping employees develop expertise that maximizes their potential. If our systems are
working, they will create a pattern, showing performance management as a regular part of
daily work. The fact that this is rarely the case suggests there is plenty of room for
improvement. Even beyond failing to drive effective, ongoing behaviors, performance End
Cycle management for administrative purposes has become synonymous with burdensome
requirements that detract from important goals. is no clear connection between
consistently high ratings given to most employees and the more variable pay increases
awarded to them. Many managers report that they do not arrive at pay decisions by
following the detailed rating processes their performance Assumption #1. Performance
management systems prescribe, management helps managers but instead retrofit their
ratings to make pay decisions. fit the pay increases they want to Reality: Performance
ratings usually give. Pay increases are affected by do not sufficiently differentiate among
many factors beyond the employee’s employees to support gradations performance,
including the in pay, unless managers use competitiveness of the market, where 4 forced
distributions. This failure to employees sit within their pay bands differentiate can leave
organizations and even whose turn it is to get a in a vulnerable situation if there
CHALLENGING ASSUMPTIONS Figure 3. Effective Performance Management Behavior Set
Goals Mid-term Review Final Appraisal Activity Level High Low Begin Cycle End Cycle 3
Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance Management How to
Drive Results ■■ Set clear expectations for employees—so they can deliver. ■■ Help
employees find solutions to problems. ■■ Play to employees’ strengths rather than their
weaknesses in work assignments. ■■ Acknowledge employees’ strengths while also
addressing development needs. ■■ Provide regular, informal feedback. larger increase this
year—a factor that often comes into play when base pay increases are small overall.
Assumption #2. Performance management provides documentation that organizations need
to defend themselves. Reality: A common belief is that documentation is needed to defend
administrative decisions, such as promotions, separations and pay raises in the face of legal
challenges. However, in most cases, formal performance management systems do a poor job
justifying ratings and aligning ratings and outcomes. What is documented in performance
management systems often ends up being more helpful to employees challenging the
organization than it is to the organization defending itself. Assumption #3. Performance
management provides a mechanism to deal with poor performers. Because employees are
17. hardly ever rated less than “meeting expectations,” most systems have 4 little information
that can be used to address performance issues. Most organizations have an entirely
separate system for dealing with unsatisfactory performers. Employees are often given
formal notice when they do not meet expectations, and specific expectations are outlined in
“performance improvement plans” or “opportunity periods.” Once employees are placed on
a performance improvement plan, managers maintain extensive documentation to justify
any subsequent actions, such as separation or reduced compensation. These separate
systems are used to deal with unsatisfactory performers because the main performance
management system usually does not contain enough accurate rating information.
WHERE’S THE DISCONNECT? Most employees and managers view their performance
management systems as largely ineffective and incapable of delivering results. But research
performed by the Corporate Leadership Council (CLC) has shown that over half of the most
important drivers of employee engagement and performance are precisely the behaviors
that define effective performance management: setting clear expectations, helping
employees accomplish work, providing regular feedback, and finding new opportunities for
employees to succeed and develop. 5 These behaviors are clearly valuable, yet our
performance management systems are not seen as producing these. Why? What can firms
do to improve results? At Google the answer came in the form of Project Oxygen, an attempt
to build better bosses. By analyzing performance reviews, feedback surveys and
nominations for managerial awards, Google identified eight habits of highly effective
managers and three pitfalls that hamper success. Google found that what its employees
valued most were even-keeled bosses who made time for one-on-one meetings, helped
them solve problems by asking questions rather than by dictating answers, and took an
interest in their lives and careers. One surprising result was that the manager’s ability to
perform technical work ranked last among the top eight behaviors. 6 Google discovered that
bosses have a great impact on employees’ performance and job attitudes. Simply put, better
bosses translate into bottom-line results. This thinking reflects the old HR adage that
“people don’t quit their jobs, they quit their managers.”7 Google’s best managers— those
who embraced the habits and avoided the pitfalls—had teams that performed better, stayed
longer and maintained positive attitudes. Eight Habits of Highly Effective Google Managers
■■ Be a good coach. ■■ Empower your team, and do not micromanage. ■■ Express
interest in team members’ personal success and well-being. ■■ Don’t be shy; be productive
and results-oriented. ■■ Communicate and listen to your team. ■■ Help your employees
with career development. ■■ Express a clear vision and strategy for the team. ■■
Demonstrate technical skills so you can help advise the team. Building a High-Performance
Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance Management Google’s Three Pitfalls of Managers ■■
Have trouble transitioning to the team. ■■ Lack a consistent approach to performance
management and career development. ■■ Spend too little time managing and
communicating. The factor over which companies have the most control in terms of
retaining employees is the quality of managers. Google began teaching managers the eight
habits in a variety of settings. This practice paid off quickly. Seventy-five percent of the
firm’s least competent managers showed significant performance improvement as a result.
8 Taken together, the implication of the CLC and Google studies is that effective leadership
18. is synonymous with effective performance management. Although managers often do not
recognize it, performance management is what good leaders do naturally, each and every
day. These behaviors are essential tools that enable managers to accomplish work through
others. For employees, performance management is the primary way of understanding
what they are supposed to do and developing and advancing their careers. Both managers
and employees should view performance management not as a formal administrative
system but as a broader tool that helps employees accomplish work and organizations
retain key talent. Communicating what employees are expected to do, providing feedback
and helping employees contribute the most they can to organizational success are the
essential behaviors managers must engage in to achieve the outcomes that drive a
company’s success. Building a HighPerformance Culture Several factors influence the
likelihood that managers and employees will practice effective performance management
behavior: ■■ The extent that they believe performance management is essential to getting
work done. ■■ The quality and trust of the manager-employee relationship. ■■ How well
the company reinforces successful performance management behavior as a key business
strategy. Figure 4 shows a four-step process to help organizations trying to build and
sustain a high-performance culture. The steps focus on changing perceptions and training,
reinforcing, and ensuring that effective behavior is integrated into the corporate culture.
Figure 4. Four Steps to Developing a High-Performance Culture Motivate change Lay
foundation • Assess current culture. • Shift performance management mindset. • Scale back
burdensome demands. • Introduce new concepts. • Put the right people in managerial jobs.
• Provide tools and resources to drive behavior. Sustain behavior Monitor and improve •
Hold leaders accountable for continuous improvement. 5 Building a High-Performance
Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance Management Rather than trying to improve
performance management tools and processes, focus instead on creating a high-
performance culture by improving the frequency and effectiveness of performance
management behavior. Changing perceptions and integrating new behaviors into the
culture are the most important—and unique—aspects of the approach described here.
Unfortunately, most organizations do very little to make a compelling business case for the
value of performance management or to solidify effectual behavior on the job. STEP 1:
MOTIVATE CHANGE Assess the Current Culture An important first step in building a high-
performance culture is to assess where the organization currently stands. Does the
company already have a culture that values excellence, strives for success, seeks feedback,
and embraces continuous learning and development? The second step is to evaluate the
extent to which both managers and employees currently engage in effective performance
management behavior. In organizations that already embrace a high-performance culture,
employees will more readily understand these concepts, making changes in behavior easier
to achieve. Organizations that do not have a performance mindset will require more time
and effort before they are able to demonstrate significant improvements in behavior.
Assessing a firm’s culture provides a roadmap to the extent and type of change needed.
Culture assessments also provide a benchmark for tracking progress during and after
implementation, serving as a helpful tool for organizational feedback. Shift Performance
Management Mindset Research and practice show that successful organizational change
19. depends on management commitment—the stronger the commitment, the greater the
potential for success. 9 Executives who believe in the value of Figure 5. Examples of
Strategies to Improve Performance Management Benefits for Managers Communicate the
big picture Provide ongoing expectations and feedback Develop others through experience
6 Benefits for Employees Employees contribute more when they understand the big picture,
meaning less work for managers. Employees feel more connected and make wiser decisions,
increasing engagement and results. Managers gain higher-quality work from staff more
quickly with less rework. Employees perform better work and feel more confident about
their contributions Managers accomplish more, succeed faster and focus on what they want
to do. Employees grow, develop and advance more quickly. Building a High-Performance
Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance Management New Mindset Both managers and
employees must engage in performance management behavior to accomplish anything at
work, so this mindset benefits everyone. performance management and communicate this
to lower-level managers and employees can help drive change. However, because success
relies on both managers and employees engaging in effective performance management
behavior, they must be convinced of its value for them personally. In other words, managers
and employees must internalize a new mindset about performance management. One way
to begin to shift mindsets is to remind people that they engage in performance management
behavior every day—with their children, spouses, co-workers, friends and vendors. Once
people make this connection, they can better grasp the meaning of performance
management in the workplace. Three actions should be targeted in the workplace: 1)
ensuring employees understand the “big picture” and their role and contribution to the
mission, 2) setting clear expectations and providing feedback so employees can succeed,
and 3) developing individual employees so they achieve their maximum potential. All three
actions, reviewed in greater detail below, are clear positives for both managers and
employees. #1: Communicate the Big Picture Leaders need to be able to describe how the
work of each employee relates to the company’s overall mission. Employees who
understand the big picture and deliver work that meets expectations can operate more
independently and effectively, freeing managers to grow the group, implement strategy or
take on higherlevel responsibilities. Once managers and employees understand these
benefits, they will be motivated to pursue them, rather than seeing performance
management as a burdensome administrative drill. Employees who have a clear
understanding of the big picture make more informed decisions and can more readily
connect with what is happening in the larger environment, rather than needing continual
step-by-step guidance from their managers. One strategy to communicate the big picture is
to cascade goals from the top of the organization through each level until they reach
individual employees. Theoretically, this approach enables employees to see how their
work fits into the organization’s mission and priorities.10 However, the process of
cascading goals has proven challenging in practice. Organizational goals are frequently
complex and can be difficult to propagate to all levels and jobs. In addition, cascading
requires meetings at each level that depend on higher levels completing their cascades. As a
practical matter, cascaded goals rarely make it down to individuals, and even partial
cascades can take months to complete. Because this process is timeconsuming and difficult
20. to execute well, especially in large organizations with many levels, it is unsustainable in
many firms.11 An alternative to cascading goals is for managers to provide a plainlanguage
description of how the team and each employee contribute to the overall mission.
Engagement, productivity and autonomous work are all facilitated by understanding how
one’s work fits into the unit, how the Recommendations ■■ Clearly articulate the
organization’s mission and priorities. ■■ Discuss how the work fits into the overall
mission. ■■ Provide regular updates so employees understand context and outside factors
affecting their work. Recommendations ■■ Tailor the type of expectations to the particular
job—behaviors, results or SMART goals. ■■ Set ongoing expectations in real time
throughout the rating period. unit contributes to the whole and what organizational issues
are influencing the work. #2: Provide Ongoing Expectations and Feedback Most formal
performance management processes begin with planning that entails communicating
expectations to employees for the upcoming rating period. A popular practice is to set
SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, timebound) goals or to identify KPIs (key
performance indicators) that provide customized, meaningful expectations and criteria
based on what each employee is expected to achieve. Establishing goals at the beginning of
the rating period can work well for jobs with static performance requirements and defined
metrics, such as sales jobs.12 However, goal setting for knowledge and servicebased jobs,
which are fluid and 7 Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance
Management Behavioral Standards • Can be used in most jobs. • Most relevant for
knowledge work. • E xample: Treat others with professionalism and respect; communicate
clearly. unpredictable, is frequently more challenging.13 Further, some jobs in fields such as
R&D do not lend themselves to goal setting at all, because predicting when and what
discoveries will occur is impossible.14 So goal setting processes overall are fairly
disappointing. Goals often read more like generic task statements rather than SMART goals,
and their difficulty varies so greatly even within a given job or level that employees raise
concerns about fairness.15 Most work situations evolve and change over time, some
significantly. Therefore, effective performance management behavior requires setting
ongoing expectations and near-term goals as situations change. This point raises questions
about the utility of formal goal setting processes conducted at the beginning of the rating
period, which are incorporated into most of today’s performance management systems.
Managers also have an important ongoing role in goal setting that is not captured well in
most formal systems; they help employees translate higher-level objectives into more
specific plans, activities, milestones and interim deliverables that they will accomplish day-
to-day. The table above shows different types of expectations a manager can establish with
employees—behavioral standards, objective results and task or project goals—and the 8
Objective Results • Best for jobs with clear, readily measured outcomes. Task or Project
Goals • Best for jobs that are dynamic, but in which nearer-term activities and milestones
can be defined. • Measure what matters, not just what can be measured. • Closest thing to
SMART. • E xamples: sales quotas, production rates, error rates. • E xample: Complete XYZ
report by Tuesday. circumstances under which each tends to work best. The idea is that a
combination and balance of different types of expectations will likely be needed at different
times during the rating period, based on the specific demands of each employee’s job.
21. Regarding feedback, most formal performance management systems mandate midyear and
year-end reviews to provide feedback on what has occurred during the rating period.
During these meetings, managers discuss their evaluations and the rationales for them with
employees.16 A great deal of worry accompanies formal performance reviews for both
managers and employees. In a recent survey, over 50 percent of respondents reported that
they believe performance reviews do not provide accurate appraisals of their work, and
nearly 25 percent said they dread performance reviews more than anything else.17 These
results are not surprising in light of a 2008 Mercer survey of 350 major U.S. companies, in
which almost 25 percent of respondents revealed that their managers are only “marginally
skilled” at doing performance evaluations, and only 12 percent indicated that their
managers were “highly skilled.” Poor attitudes toward performance reviews have led to
calls for improvements that will better motivate and develop employees, and some have
argued that formal review sessions should simply be eliminated.18 Sitting down only once
or twice a year for a perfunctory feedback review is not enough, especially for today’s
younger career-minded workers. Both technology and the growing number of Millennials
entering the workforce are driving demand for more meaningful feedback and development
strategies. But it is not just young Millennials; high performers also tend to seek regular
feedback, regardless of their age.19 To be effective, feedback needs to be provided regularly
when it makes sense to do so, not only once or twice a year during formal reviews.
Unfortunately, many managers are not skilled at providing feedback. They frequently avoid
giving feedback because they do not know how to deliver it productively and in ways that
will minimize defensive reactions. Even when managers do provide feedback, it is often
superficial and of little value. Research has consistently shown the importance of regular
feedback for effective performance management, 20 future performance 21 and job
attitudes. 22 Informal, continuous feedback is the most valuable type. 23 If feedback is
provided immediately following good or poor performance, it helps employees make real-
time alterations in their behavior and enables them to perform their work more efficiently.
24 Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance Management Figure
6. Comparison of Formal and Informal Feedback Informal Feedback Formal Feedback
Occurs in formal sit-down meetings (infrequent). Occurs spontaneously whenever
discussion is needed. Covers work conducted over time: multiple performance events and
competencies. Covers a specific incident—what went right or wrong and what to do
differently. Relies on two-way accountability and interaction. Initiated, led and controlled
by the manager. Figure 7. Leader Behaviors to Build Trust/Employee Responses to Trust
Leader Behaviors to Build Trust Employee Responses Trust 1. Make realistic commitments
1. W illingness to follow manager lead 2. F ollow through on promises 2. W illingness to take
feedback 3. Keep others informed 3. P erception of fair treatment 4. S how support and
avoid blame 5. Share information 4. Increased innovation and creativity 6. Protect those not
present 6. Increased effectiveness Many managers and employees naturally engage in
informal feedback, such as discussing how a presentation went, but these discussions tend
to be more intuitive than intentional, and they are often not recognized as feedback events.
Understanding the value of informal feedback and recognizing 5. Higher satisfaction
opportunities for it helps managers and employees take advantage of “teachable moments.”
22. These moments are learning opportunities that occur as part of day-to-day work.
Unfortunately, training for informal feedback is rare, but it is critical to successful
performance management. The effectiveness of the feedback process—informal or formal—
is contingent on the manager-employee relationship. 25 In fact, the strength of the
relationship between managers and employees influences employee job satisfaction,
organizational citizenship, engagement and performance. 26 Trust is a key element of the
quality of this relationship and an essential prerequisite for effective feedback and coaching.
27 While some managers naturally create trusting relationships with employees, attitude
surveys reveal that many employees have very poor relationships with their managers and
do not trust them. 28 Without a basic level of trust, it is unlikely that communication and
engagement between a manager and employee will be sufficiently productive to lead to
positive outcomes. Trust can be developed between managers and employees by training
managers to engage in trustbuilding behaviors, like those shown in Figure 7. As trust
increases between managers and employees, they become more comfortable with each
other and are more willing and able to participate in valuable communication and feedback.
9 Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at Performance Management #3:
Develop Others Through Experience In most formal performance management systems, the
year-end review is used as an opportunity to plan the employee’s development for the
upcoming year. Development should be ongoing and in real time as learning opportunities
arise, not restricted to one or two formal sitdown discussions yearly. In fact, if ongoing
performance conversations, candid feedback and development occur day-to-day, formal
review sessions will not really be needed, because there will be no new information to
exchange. Because identifying development areas is easier than knowing how to address
them, “Development Guides” are often provided to help managers and employees select
appropriate learning activities. 29 These guides typically suggest onthe-job experiences,
formal training and other resources, such as books or websites, targeted to different
competencies. They provide roadmaps for addressing development needs. At the year-end
review, managers and employees usually select one or two competencies toward which the
employee will direct development effort, typically taking some type of formal training. What
many managers and employees do not realize is that employees usually gain the most
learning and development by engaging in readily available job experiences day-today. 30 In
fact, 80 to 90 percent of learning occurs on the job. If, for example, an employee needs to
improve her briefing skills or customer service skills, she should have many opportunities
to practice and acquire these skills on the job. When making assignments, however,
managers often neglect to think about which employees need particular experiences and
instead assign work 10 to employees who are already highly skilled. Assigning tasks to
those who can clearly accomplish them presents less risk and potential for redoing work,
but this strategy is shortsighted. Forgoing opportunities to develop employees’ skills leaves
managers with fewer staff members who can perform the full array of job tasks with a high
degree of effectiveness. The most beneficial approach to development is for managers and
employees to continually look for opportunities that will help enhance skills, so employees
can contribute more fully. Development as a continuous process helps employees acquire
the experience they need and also encourages a developmentoriented mindset, so that
23. acquiring experience and enhancing skills become an integral part of day-today work. This
strategy focuses both managers and employees on taking advantage of naturally occurring
development opportunities, which accelerates learning. STEP 2: LAY FOUNDATION Scale
Back Burdensome Demands Regarding what system or process to implement, the key is to
ensure that the associated tools and steps support the ultimate goals of the organization. By
focusing on completing forms and steps within prescribed time frames, current
performance management processes tend to detract from effective behavior. In fact,
achieving a high-performance culture that reinforces day-to-day behavior means de-
emphasizing, streamlining and minimizing administrative requirements. We offer several
examples below of how current formal systems could be scaled back to better support
effective performance management behavior. Recommendations ■■ Use job experience as
the primary means of developing employees. ■■ Continually seek job experience that
builds performance. • Stretch outside comfort zone. • Provide opportunities to make
mistakes. • Entail deliberate practice and feedback. • Make relevant to role. Most formal
performance management systems contain a number of steps and processes that have been
shown to be difficult and time-consuming to implement well. These include things like
cascading goals, SMART goals set at the beginning of the rating period, numerical ratings on
a large number of competencies, and mandatory review meetings, among others. Although
these activities can add value in certain situations, they generally tend to contribute to
intermittent and cyclical behavior rather than to the ongoing, day-today behavior that is
necessary for a high-performance culture. To combat this problem, evaluate each step of an
organization’s formal process for the results it is producing, with an eye toward eliminating
steps, activities and requirements that fail to reinforce key leadership behaviors. For
example, many organizations base performance ratings on competencies, which are often
defined by standards that reflect different levels of responsibility, complexity and difficulty
at various job levels. Competencies are advantageous because they provide a job-relevant,
fair and consistent basis for evaluating Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look
at Performance Management employees. Some performance management systems contain a
large number of competencies, which can take a long time to rate, especially for managers
with many employees. But given that little differentiation in ratings exists among
employees, there is no compelling practical reason to rate a large number of competencies.
In the spirit of streamlining formal system requirements to make way for increased daily
performance management behavior, we recommend collecting ratings on as few
competencies as are necessary to capture the job’s critical requirements. This method can
amount to as few as three or four—for example, technical performance, teamwork and
initiative. Although five- and seven-point scales are commonly used in rating systems,
simpler scales with three points are often sufficient because most employees are rated at
the top end of whatever scale is used. See Figure 8 for an example. Another strategy for
streamlining is to eliminate weighting of competencies. An overall rating based on weighted
competencies tends to result in the same rank order of employees as using unweighted
competencies. So the added burden of weighting has no practical impact on results. A final
streamlining strategy is to reduce or eliminate requirements for narratives. If effective,
ongoing feedback is occurring in real time, narratives typically add little value and in fact
24. often undermine candid information exchange, due to reticence on the part of managers to
put negative information in writing. Also, because narratives are often misaligned with
ratings or rewards, they do not provide credible justification for either. The value of
performance narratives in many situations is unclear. The necessity of rating or “grading”
employees is an unquestioned assumption in most organizations. Recommendations ■■
Eliminate formal system steps that do not add value or undermine effective performance
management behavior. ■■ Use the smallest number of rating factors possible to cover job
requirements. ■■ Simplify rating scale and requirements. ■■ Identify tools that will be
well received and that effectively drive desired behavior. However, whether formal
numerical ratings are actually needed in a given situation is useful to evaluate. As discussed
earlier, ratings do not necessarily support the administrative purposes they are designed
for. The more performance management can be disentangled from these administrative
purposes, the easier it Figure 8. Example of a Simplified Rating Scale ❑ ❑❑Unacceptable
Failed to meet technical quality standards; work was incomplete, poorly conceived, error-
ridden or not well targeted; work performed unsatisfactorily or in an unresponsive manner.
Successful Products and services met expectations, were complete, well targeted and
understandable; work performed was responsive and competent. Outstanding Surpassed
quality standards and expectations; products were thorough, error-free, ideally targeted
and maximally responsive to needs. 11 Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look
at Performance Management Figure 9. Traditional Training/Behavior Change Traditional
Training • Typically manager only • Primarily on navigating the formal process •F ocuses on
knowledge acquisition, not skill building •O ften disconnected from on-the-job realities • No
accountability for learning or application • No reinforcement on the job will be to motivate
effective behavior. Administrative purposes actually undermine effective performance
management by inhibiting honest feedback and development discussions.31 If
organizational decision makers can abandon their numerical ratings altogether or possibly
use summary strengths and development areas in lieu of them, a high-performance culture
is likely to evolve more quickly. If policy dictates that a rating of record is needed, there are
clear advantages to implementing the least burdensome requirements that will meet the
organization’s needs, as this will minimize the effort associated with making formal ratings
that add little practical value. Introduce New Concepts Employees and managers need to be
able and motivated to engage in effective performance management. Training can be
helpful, but traditional training is more of an introduction to concepts and must then be
followed by a solid strategy to ensure behavior change. 12 Behavior Change • Training
provided for both managers and employees • Deeper dive, focusing on the knowing/ doing
gap • More individualized, using assessment results as baseline • Uncovers underlying fears
and attitudes that prevent change • Accountability for learning and application • Tools to
facilitate change One difference between the training model proposed here and typical
training is that the latter focuses primarily on formal system steps, while lip service—at
most—is paid to engaging in effective behavior. Even when more extensive behavioral
training is offered, supports are rarely in place to reinforce training on the job. Below we
discuss the beginning of the training process, designed to introduce concepts. To build a
high-performance culture, training needs to be effectively delivered and transferred to the
25. job through the use of environmental cues, tools and reinforcers that drive behavioral
change. For initial training, in-person sessions are recommended to better convey the
advantages of this new approach. Although more expensive, the training can then include
hands-on exercises and interactive discussions to facilitate understanding. If feasible, it is
best to train intact manager and employee teams to carry out ongoing performance
management activities to allow them to understand, practice and become comfortable with
their roles in the feedback and development process. clear expectations) can be offered to
support behavioral change. An advantage of web-based training is that participants can
complete programs at their own pace. Advanced forms of online training can also provide
highfidelity simulated practice exercises. The biggest disadvantage of webbased training is
that managers and employees can ignore it easily. Following initial training, web-based
modules on selected topics (e.g., setting Put the Right People in Managerial Jobs A final
important component of Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at
Performance Management creating the foundation for a highperformance culture is
ensuring that managers with the potential or skills to perform effectively are in place. Many
are promoted into managerial positions because of their technical competence, even though
the job of a manager is not to perform technical work. One of the more interesting findings
from the Google study is that in an organization that relies on technical innovation and
competence, the ability to provide advice on technical issues was the least critical of the
eight good boss habits. These results further support what we already know—namely, that
the essence of a manager’s job is to direct and develop others successfully. Managers need
particular aptitudes, skills and dispositions to be able to learn their leadership roles and
effectively accomplish work through others. So selecting managers who are well suited for
the job is the first step in driving effective performance management behavior. reinforce
productive behaviors. On-the-job performance management aids are useful to strengthen
skills learned in training. For example, an aid might be developed that lists a manager’s
primary responsibilities in the performance management process. Such aids tend to be
succinct “at a glance” tools, and as such, they are usually most beneficial following formal
training. The advantage of such aids is that they can be used at an employee’s discretion.
Other tools that help keep performance management at the forefront of employees’ and
managers’ minds on a daily basis include things like cartoons-of-the-day and messages from
leadership, which can be sent to employees’ desktops, laptops and mobile devices. Over the
past several years, many organizations have implemented automated systems to ease
administrative demands. The typical automated performance management system is a
stand-alone system that is separate Obviously, if attention has not been from other
automated systems that are paid to selecting managers with strong used daily. As such, they
require separate leadership skills, more effort will need logins, and most get used only at
peak to be devoted to training and training required activity times: the beginning transfer.
Because many organizations of the cycle, when most performance will not displace
managers once they management processes require goals are selected, there may be limits
on how to be recorded in the system, toward well some managers will be able to learn the
end of the cycle, when employees effective performance management are often required to
record their behavior. Selecting managers with the accomplishments or self-ratings, and
26. potential to perform satisfactorily makes at the very end, when managers are a long-term
contribution to building a required to record ratings. high-performance culture. STEP 3:
SUSTAIN BEHAVIOR Provide Tools and Resources to Drive Behavior After introducing the
concepts underlying effective performance management through formal training, the next
crucial step is to incorporate tools and features that build and If performance management
tools that facilitate feedback and development were incorporated seamlessly into the
standard IT systems and workflows that employees use every day, they would help drive
more regular behavior. Simply put, making tools easily accessible makes it more likely
people will use them. One organization tagged e-mails to flag them as development or
feedback Recommended Topics For both managers and employees: ■■ Building trust. ■■
Learning strategies for communication. ■■ Ongoing expectations and feedback. ■■
Developing through experience. For managers: ■■ Communicating the big picture. ■■
Diagnosing and addressing performance issues. ■■ Deep-diving on feedback and coaching
skills. For employees: ■■ Ensuring clear expectations. ■■ Seeking feedback. ■■ Reacting
well to feedback. events. Another organization provided an easily accessible tool to provide
feedback to others with a click. Tools that incorporate social networking concepts to drive
feedback are especially helpful for engaging younger employees in the performance
management process. Some organizations provide a performance management hotline to
facilitate learning and to provide coaching support for managers and employees. Callers can
ask questions about performance management issues they are experiencing. While such
hotlines can add value in building a performance culture, organizations must be willing to
staff them with capable people who can competently offer advice. This type of hotline
requires a different skill set than do hotlines focused on procedural, administrative and
automated system support. 13 Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at
Performance Management Menu of Environmental Reinforcers ■■ “At a glance” aids. ■■
Automated tools that drive feedback and development embedded in enterprise systems.
Google, not only evaluate manager effectiveness but also provide coaches for those who
need additional support. In turn, managers should periodically check in with employees,
assessing and discussing how well they are engaging in the process. as perceptions about
the value of performance management. Old Thinking Versus New Thinking While some have
suggested that performance management is so broken that formal processes should ■■
Attention-grabbing messaging be eliminated entirely, this is not pushed out via automated
necessary. Rather, substantial changes systems. should be made to redirect current
performance management systems ■■ Performance management What will help drive a
highand approaches so they focus on hotlines and coaches. performance culture are
ongoing reinforcing the critical behaviors—for evaluation, feedback and improvement both
managers and employees—that ■■ Social networking tools and of the system as a whole.
Pulse supports to share experiences ensure performance management surveys directed to
individual and lessons learned. success. Having formal processes managers can be
aggregated so in place also provides a valuable that metrics can be tracked at an safety net
to ensure that at least A final strategy to reinforce effective enterprise level. Reporting these
some performance information is behavior is to create communities of results should
further motivate the communicated to those employees interest or practice, in which
27. members frequency and effectiveness of with poor managers who may can exchange
information, experiences the leadership behaviors we have otherwise neglect their
performance and lessons learned to help each been discussing. In addition, we management
responsibilities. other. Performance management recommend evaluating the extent portals,
blogs, forums or collaboration The table on the next page to which the new performance
tools can easily be made available to summarizes key differences between management
practices are affecting facilitate this. the traditional “old” approach and bottom-line
business results as well the “new” approach discussed in Building a performance
management culture is not something that will happen overnight. Rather, it can take
considerable time, even years, for enculturation of sustainable change. STEP 4: MONITOR
AND IMPROVE Hold Leaders Accountable for Continuous Improvement To drive
enculturation of performance management behavior, short pulse surveys are useful for
collecting feedback about the extent to which employees believe that their managers are
providing them with growth opportunities on the job, setting expectations that make
performance requirements clear and providing effective feedback that helps them develop.
Providing the results of these surveys to managers drives accountability and helps guide
behavior adjustments. Organizations serious about building high-performance cultures, like
14 Figure 12. Sample Evaluation Metrics Business results (decreased turnover, improved
outcomes) Behavior change from existing state (pulse surveys/360s) Employee and leader
views (surveys, focus groups) Building a High-Performance Culture: A Fresh Look at
Performance Management Performance Management “Old Thinking” Performance
Management “New Thinking” Organizational Alignment Cascading goals Mission
articulation and discussions of fit Goals SMART goals at the beginning of the cycle Ongoing
expectations as work evolves Development Reluctance to discuss; primarily formal training
Part of daily routine; acquiring experience, mentoring Feedback Once or twice a …
