Clear Review has joined Advanced - Discover our full suite of powerful and innovative people management solutions

Find out more
Back to blog

Why Some Organisations Are Having Problems After Ditching Performance Ratings

HR with performance rating checklist.

5 rea­sons why per­for­mance man­age­ment sys­tems can fail with­out per­for­mance ratings

The media has been abuzz recent­ly with news that cer­tain com­pa­nies are suf­fer­ing after ditch­ing their per­for­mance rat­ings. Accord­ing to a Huff­in­g­ton Post arti­cle dis­cussing the recent CEB sur­vey, though employ­ees hate being reviewed and rat­ed, they appear to dis­like not being rat­ed even more. Some com­pa­nies who aban­doned their rat­ings sys­tem have seen a 10% decline in per­for­mance along with an employ­ee engage­ment drop of 6%.

How­ev­er, these find­ings are not par­tic­u­lar­ly sur­pris­ing. Intro­duc­ing and encour­ag­ing new meth­ods of man­ag­ing per­for­mance is not a quick fix. Before their ben­e­fits can be realised, they demand a sig­nif­i­cant invest­ment in both effort and time which many organ­i­sa­tions in the CEB sur­vey did not make. Employ­ees won’t adapt imme­di­ate­ly. As Don­na Mor­ris, exec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent at Adobe has said in rela­tion to drop­ping annu­al appraisals and rat­ings, It’s a jour­ney, and not a des­ti­na­tion”. They even­tu­al­ly achieved remark­able results from this move, with vol­un­tary turnover decreas­ing by 30%. So if you’re not get­ting imme­di­ate results after aban­don­ing rat­ings or appraisals, avoid the temp­ta­tion to revert back to a sys­tem that we know doesn’t work.

Research has shown time and again that rat­ing work­ers is coun­ter­pro­duc­tive, neg­a­tive­ly impact­ing morale and pro­duc­tiv­i­ty alike. When pre­sent­ed with a numer­i­cal rep­re­sen­ta­tive val­ue of all our effort and abil­i­ties, we very often expe­ri­ence a fight or flight response that is unhelp­ful and detri­men­tal to per­for­mance. With this in mind, it makes sense to leave annu­al per­for­mance rat­ings in the past where they belong and stick with an ongo­ing, devel­op­men­tal approach to per­for­mance management.

So if your com­pa­ny hasn’t been see­ing the ben­e­fits it expect­ed since aban­don­ing rat­ings or appraisals, care­ful­ly con­sid­er each point below to see whether you’re mak­ing any of the fol­low­ing five mistakes:

1. You didn’t do enough com­mu­ni­ca­tion or training

As with any form of change man­age­ment, step­ping away from annu­al appraisals and per­for­mance rat­ings needs to be sup­port­ed with reg­u­lar, effec­tive com­mu­ni­ca­tion and train­ing for both man­agers and employ­ees. You need to take the time to explain to staff what’s in it for them and the ben­e­fits they will get from the time they invest in the new approach. With­out this knowl­edge, employ­ees may see it as just anoth­er HR ini­tia­tive’. Man­agers also need to be trained to give them the nec­es­sary skills and con­fi­dence to have good qual­i­ty reg­u­lar per­for­mance discussions.

2. You haven’t intro­duced for­mal guide­lines to man­age and track meetings

When mov­ing to a con­tin­u­ous per­for­mance man­age­ment approach, don’t just leave man­agers to meet with their team mem­bers when­ev­er the mood takes them. That’s what some of the organ­i­sa­tions in the CEB research did and they found that the one-to-one meet­ings sim­ply didn’t hap­pen. There should be for­mal process­es in place which set expec­ta­tions as to the fre­quen­cy of check-in meet­ings and to ensure that they are tak­ing place. The effec­tive­ness of these meet­ings should also be mon­i­tored, with employ­ee feed­back being an impor­tant element.

3. Employ­ees are not get­ting reg­u­lar feedback

If we look at the com­pa­nies men­tioned in the CEB study, we learn that their prob­lems lay in man­agers not giv­ing reg­u­lar feed­back to employ­ees. This is often because man­agers lack the con­fi­dence to give hon­est feed­back, espe­cial­ly con­struc­tive feed­back. You can over­come this by train­ing your staff on how to give and receive feed­back effec­tive­ly. There are a num­ber of great resources avail­able that cov­er how to give good feed­back dur­ing a per­for­mance dis­cus­sion, and our own Clear Review per­for­mance man­age­ment soft­ware has built-in guid­ance and videos for staff on how to give great feedback.

Per­for­mance man­age­ment soft­ware can also help to encour­age reg­u­lar feed­back by mak­ing it very easy for staff to give each oth­er real-time feed­back via their phone or computer.

4. You aren’t encour­ag­ing your employ­ees to take own­er­ship of their own performance

To real­ly make an ongo­ing approach to per­for­mance man­age­ment work, the respon­si­bil­i­ty for set­ting objec­tives and hav­ing reg­u­lar check-ins should not be left up to man­agers. Instead, make employ­ees respon­si­ble for book­ing check-in meet­ings with their man­ag­er and then place the onus on the man­ag­er to hon­our the meet­ings and ensure that they are of high-qual­i­ty. This ulti­mate­ly leads to employ­ees feel­ing more empow­ered and in con­trol of their careers and man­agers feel­ing less put-upon. Organ­i­sa­tions such as Deloitte have adopt­ed this approach with great success.

5. You’re not using the right per­for­mance review software

When mov­ing away from annu­al per­for­mance rat­ings and appraisals, you’ll get the most ben­e­fit from your new process by using HR per­for­mance review soft­ware that is designed specif­i­cal­ly to sup­port a con­tin­u­ous approach to per­for­mance man­age­ment. Using such soft­ware, both man­agers and employ­ees can track and mon­i­tor ongo­ing per­for­mance goals and actions and give in-the-moment feed­back. This soft­ware can also prompt employ­ees to check-in reg­u­lar­ly and give HR full vis­i­bil­i­ty of per­for­mance activ­i­ty so they can inter­vene when employ­ees aren’t hav­ing reg­u­lar check-ins or being giv­en fre­quent feedback.

CEB’s own study con­cludes by advo­cat­ing the ben­e­fits of a con­tin­u­ous approach to per­for­mance man­age­ment, claim­ing that ongo­ing feed­back can improve per­for­mance by 12% — a find­ing that was large­ly when the media report­ed the study. The moral of this sto­ry is that we should­n’t nec­es­sar­i­ly get hung up on whether or not to rate per­for­mance; we should instead focus on encour­ag­ing fre­quent feed­back from man­agers and peers and get­ting them to engage in reg­u­lar per­for­mance discussions.