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

Find out more
Back to blog

Why Uber's Performance Management is Outdated and Ineffective

Guy using uber mobile app in the street in front of a taxi.

Uber’s refusal to aban­don out­dat­ed per­for­mance man­age­ment meth­ods might cause it to crumble

Read our new Performance Management Trends for 2017 article

There is a tidal wave of com­pa­nies who are turn­ing their backs on the year­ly per­for­mance review and out­mod­ed per­for­mance man­age­ment prac­tices, such as forced rank­ings and rat­ings. They are instead favour­ing more for­ward-think­ing approach­es, like con­tin­u­ous per­for­mance man­age­ment. Even the finan­cial sec­tor is slow­ly com­ing around, as J.P. Mor­gan Chase demon­strat­ed when it ditched annu­al reviews for ongo­ing per­for­mance discussions.

In 2016, Ama­zon put an end to their stack rank­ing sys­tem, fol­low­ing hot on the heels of oth­er large com­pa­nies such as Gen­er­al Elec­tric — the com­pa­ny who famous­ly cre­at­ed this per­for­mance rank­ing mod­el in the first place. It is increas­ing­ly clear that rank­ing and forced rat­ings are, at best, futile, as sug­gest­ed by For­tune, and at worst, a ter­ri­ble dystopi­an night­mare akin to The Hunger Games, as point­ed out by Busi­ness Insid­er.

How­ev­er, not all com­pa­nies are quick to make the change. Recent­ly, news hit that Amer­i­can trans­porta­tion net­work com­pa­ny Uber is still using the rank and yank’ mod­el. Despite the fact that this com­pa­ny is incred­i­bly young, orig­i­nal­ly found­ed in 2009, it appears to be behind the times and old-fash­ioned when it comes to per­for­mance man­age­ment sys­tems. But why, specif­i­cal­ly, is Uber’s per­for­mance man­age­ment sys­tem inad­e­quate, and why should it con­sid­er a rad­i­cal rehaul?

For one work­er to suc­ceed, anoth­er employ­ee has to fail

In an ide­al com­pa­ny, team­work would be pri­ori­tised. Employ­ees would be encour­aged to assist one anoth­er in order to improve the com­pa­ny as a whole. This sim­ply isn’t pos­si­ble when com­pa­nies imple­ment a sys­tem such as Uber’s, as employ­ees are in direct com­pe­ti­tion. Each year, the top 10% of employ­ees are reward­ed and the bot­tom 10% face the chop­ping block. Even in a com­pa­ny full of remark­able employ­ees, 10% must fail. Know­ing this, why would an employ­ee help its competition?

As a basis for com­par­i­son, we can look to Microsoft as a case study. A Van­i­ty Fair piece dis­cussing Microsoft­’s Lost Decade’ and its asso­ci­a­tion with stack rank­ing states the inten­si­ty and destruc­tive­ness of the game play­ing grew worse as employ­ees strug­gled to beat out their co-work­ers for pro­mo­tions, bonus­es, or just sur­vival. Microsoft’s man­agers, inten­tion­al­ly or not, pumped up the vol­ume on the vicious­ness. What emerged […] was a tox­ic stew of inter­nal antag­o­nism and warfare.”

Employ­ee morale suf­fers — and work­ers are con­stant­ly anxious

Rank­ing is a recipe for dis­as­ter not only for com­pa­ny cul­ture, but also for employ­ee morale. Employ­ees live in con­stant fear of los­ing their jobs. This tox­ic work­ing envi­ron­ment means work­ers are less like­ly to open up to their man­agers. It will also like­ly increase pre­sen­teeism, an issue that is almost as destruc­tive to a com­pa­ny as absen­teeism. How engaged can employ­ees be when they know, on a cer­tain lev­el, that their com­pa­ny sees them as num­bers that can be pruned away at a moment’s notice?

On top of all this, we need to con­sid­er employ­ee burnout. Giv­en the added pres­sure placed upon employ­ees’ shoul­ders, they are like­ly to work long hours and push them­selves beyond their lim­its. This is not an effec­tive long-term strat­e­gy. It is detri­men­tal to employ­ee health and it does noth­ing to improve employ­ee performance.

Objec­tive mea­sur­ing might not be reli­able — or objective

Pro­po­nents of rat­ing and rank­ing believe it to be a fair sys­tem, as it is based on num­bers. And what could be more objec­tive than num­bers? How­ev­er, we need to con­sid­er the means by which we arrive at these fig­ures. Human beings are mak­ing eval­u­a­tions and deci­sions based on per­for­mance, which means there is every oppor­tu­ni­ty for bias and sub­jec­tiv­i­ty to slip in.

As rank and yank sys­tems gen­er­al­ly involve a sin­gle, year­ly per­for­mance appraisal, an employee’s rat­ing is based sole­ly on one meet­ing. This means that far from being accu­rate, fair and reflec­tive, rat­ings are usu­al­ly ill-informed and depend at least par­tial­ly on the mood of the man­ag­er and the rela­tion­ship he or she has with the employee.

Man­agers would receive a much more reflec­tive and accu­rate indi­ca­tion of employ­ee behav­iour with the incor­po­ra­tion of con­tin­u­ous per­for­mance man­age­ment. It ben­e­fits every­one involved to have reg­u­lar, pres­sure-free per­for­mance conversations.

Improve­ment isn’t tak­en into consideration

One sig­nif­i­cant prob­lem with rank and yank sys­tems is that they don’t take into account employ­ee improve­ment. One employ­ee might have seri­ous­ly advanced their skills and strengths from one year to the next, but fall com­par­a­tive­ly low on the bell curve. Despite all the hard work the employ­ee has put into self-improve­ment, they still risk being penalised. Not only is this dev­as­tat­ing for the employ­ee, but it is short-sight­ed of the com­pa­ny, who will lose a promis­ing and deter­mined employee.

Uber will lose out to oth­er, more for­ward-think­ing companies

Back in the day, many large com­pa­nies made use of rank­ing sys­tems. But suc­cess­ful com­pa­nies know that in order to com­pete and suc­ceed in an ever-evolv­ing busi­ness cli­mate, they need to incor­po­rate mod­ern per­for­mance man­age­ment trends and shed old ones. Giv­en the lack of employ­ee engage­ment and morale that rank­ing pro­motes, it is like­ly that Uber employ­ees will jump ship to one of these com­pa­nies as soon as a promis­ing oppor­tu­ni­ty presents itself. In order to improve reten­tion and improve the company’s rep­u­ta­tion, Uber should con­sid­er phas­ing out this out­dat­ed per­for­mance man­age­ment notion, or they’ll lose their best and bright­est to a com­pa­ny that can offer them a bit of room to breathe.

At Clear Review, we are advo­cates for con­tin­u­ous per­for­mance man­age­ment. We see employ­ees as peo­ple, not num­bers, and we can help boost your com­pa­ny’s per­for­mance. To find out how, book a per­son­al demo.