Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Fred Nickols
1
See "Don’t Redesign Your Company’s Performance Appraisal System, Scrap
It!" in the May-June 1997 issue of Corporate University Review, pp. 54-59.
People can be regularly heard saying something like the following, "Let
me give you some feedback." They also can be heard asking for it. In
this usage, "feedback" refers to information provided or solicited. Such
information often pertains to how the person who is receiving it is per-
ceived by the person who is providing it.
It is useful to know about the judgments others make of us, but if the
only time we seek or obtain such information is at performance apprais-
al time, we are managing our lives and careers on the basis of very
skimpy and highly unreliable information. Information about how we are
doing needs to be and is ordinarily gathered on an ongoing basis.
Those of us who care to know have a sense of where we stand with
others.
The preceding remarks apply to the common usage of the term "feed-
back," which is a far cry from its technical meaning. The technical mean-
ing of "feedback" is concerned with control. In the context of control,
feedback is information about actual conditions in relation to some ref-
erence condition. Underlying this view of feedback is the observation
and measurement of results and the use of this information in controlling
the actions that produce the results.
2
See Joseph M. Juran’s comments about self-control in Managerial Break-
through (pp. 189-190).
those activities in light of their own intentions (whether or not these in-
tentions are consistent or inconsistent with the expectations of man-
agement).
More important than the frequency with which expectations are commu-
nicated is the clarity with which they are communicated. Clarity usually
emerges over time, the result of a continuing dialogue, not a one-time
transmission. Because expectations change, they must be discussed on
a regular basis. The frequency of such discussions must match the rate
of change in the work itself. To rely on annual or even quarterly perfor-
mance reviews as the mechanism for conveying what are essentially
unfolding expectations seems likely to prove singularly ineffective.
3
This brief paper is no place to elaborate on the implications of the shift to know-
ledge work. Readers who are unfamiliar with this civilization-shaking phenome-
non would do well to consult two of Peter Drucker’s books: The Age of Disconti-
nuity, and Management.
force the illusion of control. Performance appraisal systems are not ne-
cessary to the development of clear, mutually understood and agreed to
work objectives. Indeed, owing to their punitive aspects, performance
appraisal systems might well constitute a hindrance to setting work ob-
4
jectives, not a help.
The alignment to be achieved here is between pay and benefits and the
work contributions expected from the employee. Keeping pay scales
aligned with the labor market is probably more important than anything
that happens in a performance appraisal session. Again, it is a process
of regular, ongoing, two-way dialogue that is required, not periodic ap-
praisal sessions where the employee is being judged.
4
There is no better discussion of this point than Douglas McGregor’s classic
HBR article, "An Uneasy Look at Performance Appraisals." Harvard Business
Review (May-June 1957).
5
See March and Simon’s book, Organizations, for a clear exposition of the con-
cepts of contributions and inducements.
The political issue lies in ensuring that rewards and recognition are con-
sistent with employees’ views as well as management’s views. Em-
ployees often have a different picture of who is contributing what to the
organization. From their perspective, the real contributors often go un-
rewarded. One obvious solution here is to make available a certain
amount of funding for employee-awarded rewards and recognition.
It is also the case that annual merit raises are quite modest, even at the
extremes of the rating scales. Their motivational value is dubious, and
linking them to performance appraisals adds little value.
In short, the answer to the question is that you shouldn’t have merit in-
creases, let alone tie them to performance appraisals.
Conclusions
We return then to the central question: What would we do without per-
formance appraisal systems?
We would do quite nicely, thank you, and at much less cost, both eco-
nomic and emotional, than is now the case. For any function claimed as
supported by performance appraisal systems, there are other, better
options available. In short, performance appraisal systems don’t add
much value.
6
See my article, "Don’t Redesign Your Company’s Performance Appraisal Sys-
tem, Scrap It!”