Bruce Tulgan's Free Newsletter (TEXT VERSION) May 27, 2010 issue - 235th edition "What Gets Measured and What Should Get Measured?" Why is it that so many managers and employees find the traditional review process to be inadequate, incomplete, unfair, or even downright capricious? I think the reason is that six or twelve month reviews usually fail to accurately measure the employee's actual performance over the course of the time they purport to measure. Throughout the course of the year, managers rarely conduct an ongoing, explicit evaluation of each employee's concrete actions against clearly stated expectations. When prompted by HR or the boss' boss to write reviews or rank employees, most managers scramble to complete obtuse "measurements" and they do it because they are required to do it. How often do we hear about managers asking their employees to do a "first draft" of the review to give the manager something to work from, and fast, because the deadline is approaching? Usually, managers assemble evaluations, reviews, and rankings based on the scant records they have kept during the year.
In order to accurately evaluate an employee's performance, managers would need to look at the concrete actions that employee is taking every day to get his job done and then measure it against the expectations that were set for that employee in advance. On an ongoing basis, managers need to ask three questions: If you have been monitoring, measuring, and documenting the concrete actions of your employees on a day to day basis, then answering these questions should simply require a cumulative summary of your regular tracking. This is the data that you need to have if you're going to have an accurate review of any employee's true performance.
BONUS MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICE
|