Never have liked official and corporate-wide evaluation and feedback systems. Here is why.
Company A has a policy of constant and regular feedback for its employees. Managers ask co workers to evaluate other co workers, you know, to “help” them get better, yadayadayada. They CANNOT only have positive things to say, either, they MUST find at least one area of development need.
So, the conversations go something like this: ”But isn’t there one thing about Bill that you do not like?” ”No, not really, he is easy to work with, and does a great job.” ”Not even one little thing?” ”No, I like what he does and how he does it.”
“Surely, there is one thing. Does it upset you that he is always early to meetings?” ”No, that is good.”
“But doesn’t that show he is trying to show the rest of you up, you know, to make points with the boss?” ”No, I don’t think so.”
“Don’t you think that others might see his always being early to meetings as a sign he has his eyes set on a higher position.” ”I don’t think so, no.”
“But don’t you see how someone MIGHT think that way?” ”I guess so, yes.”
Later:
“Bill, people are concerned that you are too much on the lookout for your own career. That you are always bucking for a promotion. And that you are a brown-noser.”
Riddle me this. Do you think Bill is more motivated today as a result of this feedback? Or less. Don’t bother telling me this does not happen. It happens every day.
18 users commented in " The Trouble with “Feedback” Systems "
I think you have grossly exaggerated and oversimplified the issue.
We use a confidential assessment administered by a 3rd-party vendor to provide our employees with feedback to aid them in their development. No one in our organization can see what feedback was given by any individual. We feel that this overcomes the obstacles you discuss in this post.
Corporate-wide feedback has always been a crapshoot and because they’re typically anonymous, a real opportunity for cheap shots. Let’s be honest, outside of your manager, does anyone REALLY know enough of what you do to provide an assessment of your performance. Nope! If the corporation was really interested in everyone having a say in your performance, they’d encourage open, honest and direct feedback IN PERSON!
While you may have exaggerated the example, that is exactly what occurs. And wimpy bosses who look for “developmental issues” from “your peer group” so that they can tell you how you are “perceived” are the worst offenders in the bunch. Man up, folks. This isn’t high school anymore.
Oh, and to answer the question of whether Bill is more motivated today as the result of feedback…that would be an unequivocal and resounding NO! He’s now spending most of his time wondering who the heck made the comment, and is now hoping for an opportunity to provide reciprocal feedback for the moron(s) he’s determined said it in the first place!
In my view this is an excellent post about the opportunity for using 360 feedback evaluations or reviews as “pretexts” to hide all kinds of discrimination. This comment,”No one in our organization can see what feedback was given by any individual. We feel that this overcomes the obstacles you discuss in this post.” is a great example.
When “peers” are anonymously evaluating an employee they have a layer of confidence to adversely affect his /her employment by hiding in the shadows. For example, The aforementioned comment assumes a flawless and virginous workplace where racism, sexism, ageism and other “isms” don’t exist.
Employees and employers bring all types of biases to the workplace all day everyday. Any evaluative system that aids in fostering those biases can’t be beneficial to workplace success.
The 360, the method used in these corporate-wide evaluations, wasn’t designed as an evaluative tool. It was designed as a diagnostic tool. Put more simply, it wasn’t designed to tell you if a manager was good or bad, but to tell you a little better why someone’s performance might be particularly good, bad or both. Using it for the latter requires pretty intensive analysis of the results that’s probably not scalable in the way these programs assume. Also, there’s a fundamental difference in the quality of the data you’re going to get from people responding to one or two of these requests than to eight or nine.
The bottom line is that the tool as implemented is usually weak version of a decent tool misused by its users.
Company A, fictional as it may be, has a deep problem with its culture that is exposed by attempting this feedback system.
I have an uncle who is overweight and won’t go to the doctor because he doesn’t want to be told that he isn’t healthy. The same thing is going on at Company A, and at any number of real companies avoiding the truth about their internal cultures.
JoJo…I pretty much agree with you on each point.
Yancey, Bill and Alex:
The basic point I was making is that no matter how sophisticated the feedback systems and how well the employees giving them are trained, it is virtually impossible to get it right consistently. I first saw this in the late 60′s in the USAF and in virtually every company since then, it has been true. The bigger the company, the more they train and train, on how to give such feedback and absent total control and discipline it simply cannot be done effectively. Far better to give constant, even daily helpful feedback and help. If managers thought more about being helpers than being managers, I think that would be a good first step.
Mike, the first guy….thanks for stopping by, please come back.