My wife went through this lovely process today.
I find it Arbitrary. Debilitating. Bad. Leading to Pygmalion effect.
Before You Review Employees, Review The System:
We conduct reviews with the best intentions. However,
A conductor doesn’t improve music by ranking violinists. They synchronize coordination, timing, and harmony.
A farmer doesn’t criticize the corn. He examines the soil, water, sunlight, and growing conditions.
If annual performance reviews actually improved performance, wouldn’t we expect decades of evidence by now?
Who looks at how the system impacts the person?
Why zero in how the person impacts the system?
Every review says something about the employee. What does it reveal about your leadership?
What gets measured gets managed, not necessarily improved.
Most companies review employees annually but rarely review management systems.
The person is visible. The system is not.
I am changing this.
Or am I a just a fool? Suggesting Americans operate their companies Exactly Backwards? Backwards, exactly like our standard performance process:
Focusing on people: Not the system.
Reviews cause more harm than good. If you don’t believe me: Just imagine rating and ranking your wife and kids. Go ahead, try it. I dare you. Google the 94/6 rule.
My issues with performance reviews:
Concern #1: They focus on the person, not the system. Most variation in performance comes from the system, not the individual.
Measuring traffic doesn’t reduce congestion. If 100 parts come off a machine defective, do we blame each part, or inspect the process?
Concern #2: They create fear. People become concerned with protecting ratings rather than improving work.
Fear produces compliance. It rarely produces innovation.
Concern #3: They encourage competition over cooperation. People optimize for personal success rather than organizational success.
Competition creates a lot more losers than winners.
Concern #4: They reward visible activity. The most valuable contributions are often invisible, collaborative, or long-term.
The greatest opportunity for improvement often lies between departments, not within them.
Concern #5: They assume managers can accurately judge performance. Many outcomes are influenced by factors outside an employee’s control.
A review may tell you who is struggling. It rarely explains why.
Are your reviews improving performance or merely documenting them?
What if your employees are not the problem?
Do they leave reviews feeling inspired or fearful? How would you know?
Does your process create cooperation or internal competition?
Could two employees trade jobs and produce similar results?
Are you measuring effort, outcomes, or circumstances?
What would happen if reviews focused on removing barriers instead of assigning ratings?
If your best employee moved to your worst department, would they still be your best employee?
Would you rather improve 10 people individually, or improve the system they all work within?
This is what the reviewee sees:
The reviewer gets Jack Shit. 0-6% accuracy rate at best.
Is this the best we can do?