Employees Need Feedback

Performance reviews are like trips to the dentist. Supervisors too often find any excuse to avoid or delay conducting them. The general assumption is that employees don't enjoy getting them any more than their supervisors like giving them, and most employees already know how well they're doing in their jobs. Thus it may seem performance reviews are not only superfluous but promote unnecessary interpersonal discomfort, possible confrontation and a loss of productive time.

These generalizations do have some basis in fact, but for the majority of the work force the truth may be just the opposite. By and large, employees want to know how their performances are being judged and review what is expected of them — and they want this feedback on a consistent basis.

When workers are asked, "How often would you like to receive a performance review from your supervisor?" the most common response is, "As often as possible on a practical basis."

Employees want to know how well they are doing relative to what is expected of them. They want to know if their progress and improvement are recognized, and whether they are in line for promotion. In some cases, performance reviews reveal areas of responsibility employees were unaware were part of their job descriptions.

It is important to separate the issues of pay increases and performance reviews. They are two entirely different processes with two entirely different purposes and backgrounds. These activities should be thought of and executed as different events. Associating the two is counterproductive to the process of improving performance and offering feedback in the frequency needed.

The supervisor and the employee must understand that a pay increase may or may not result from a job well done, and that a high performance evaluation may or may not justify a pay increase. Sometimes an employee's improvement is part of a series of steps leading to a pay increase, but other times a pay increase is associated with a cost-of-living adjustment.

In conducting a performance review, both the employee and the supervisor need to start from the same updated job description. The description should accurately reflect the required skills, knowledge and performance expectation of the position, including who the employee reports to and the overall contribution the position makes to the firm's success.

In detailing skills, knowledge and performance expectations, examples and illustrations should be included as often as possible for purposes of clarification. If a rating scale is used in evaluating performance (a scale of one to 10, for example), the employee deserves a 10 on all ratings if the supervisor cannot offer examples of what task is expected to be performed differently in the future, why the change will generate a better result, and what resources might improve performance.

Several questions that connect to the broader issue of human resources development also should be addressed in reviews as a strategic means for ensuring a company's future performance. The first is, "Are there areas of the company you are interested in learning about and would like to make a contribution to?" The answers to this question could form the basis for a full-blown cross-training program.

Not only does the question (and any resulting training program) directly address the increasing importance of personal development over pay in today's youthful workforce, it helps safeguard against the inevitability of employee turnover.

The second question is related to the first, "Do you have skills and talents that we have not made use of?" Or better still, "Would you please list any skills or talents that you have developed that are not currently recognized and being utilized by the company?"

Too often management requires an outside consultant to uncover the frustrated ambitions and talents that lie smoldering in employee ranks. Too often employees learn of a job opening or a new position only when a new employee is brought in from the outside. Too often a supervisor learns in the exit interview what ambitions and frustrations a valued associate carried. It is a sad commentary when management's reason for not promoting an employee was that he/she was doing too good a job in the current position.

A final question supervisors can ask is, "Is there anything I can change or do that would make a positive difference in what you are able to accomplish?" Do not expect to hear very much the first few times the question is asked. Initial answers will test the sincerity and interest in the question.

At the end of every performance review, agreed upon actions for improvement on both sides should be made clear, along with a reasonable time frame in which to accomplish them. Both the work performance and time frame expected should be perceived as fair by both parties.

Finally, employees deserve their reviews in writing. This process takes time, thought and effort.

There is possibly no more important time spent between a supervisor and an employee than during a performance review. Once performance reviews are seen as opportunities rather than uncomfortable encounters, the supervisor can tailor reviews to be productive for everyone concerned.