Despite years of criticism, carping and complaining, repeated tinkering and
outright overhauls, not to mention a dismal record of performance when it
comes to its own performance, performance appraisal systems are still with
us � and they show no signs of going away.
Why is that? Why is it that something so obviously less than satisfactory
to all concerned is sustained and maintained in the face of such negative
evidence and repeated attacks?
We know enough to know that it isn�t because performance appraisal systems
are such useful tools in managing performance. How do we know that?
Because even their staunchest defenders are quick to acknowledge that
performance appraisal systems could be useful if only they were done
properly. In my book, that�s tantamount to an admission of ineffectiveness.
We know it isn�t because managers love writing and delivering performance
appraisals. Study after study and writer after writer have pointed out that
managers hate the hassle associated with performance appraisal systems. A
few have even pointed out that managers hate having to sit in judgment.
And, we know it isn�t because the people whose performance is being
appraised love to receive those once or twice yearly assessments of their
performance, often from someone who hasn�t a clue as to what they do or how
well they do it.
Nope; none of the typical reasons given for having or using a performance
appraisal system accounts for the continued existence of those little
beasts. So, it�s got to be something else � and I think I know what that
something else is.
Except in rare cases, and then usually at elevated levels, even a glowing
performance appraisal does not deliver much in the way of reward, monetary
or otherwise. However, a so-so appraisal, let alone a negative one, can be
the kiss of death to one�s career. Most people, then, don�t strive to
realize the rewards of a good appraisal; they seek instead to avoid the
penalties associated with a less than positive one.
Performance appraisal systems are conveniently open to manipulation from the
top. Senior execs can and do dictate bell-shaped distributions and even
impose I-Beam or top-to-bottom rank ordering of employees. And, of course,
they manage the money pot as well.
In short, what performance appraisal systems really do is shore up and
reinforce an age-old, hierarchical system of authority and compliance with
its dictates. They are the vestigial remnants of the overseer�s whip and,
like that whip, they operate on the basis of fear.
Everyone knows this but no one talks about it. Why is that?
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at a Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us