I have given performance evaluations for the past 3 years and I have received them the 2 years before that. I have been on both sides of them and they are a complete waste of time. The supervisors cringe when they see them and the subordinates can really care less because nothing good or bad ever comes from them. The only reason my department does them is to please HR. The supervisors do not like giving negative evaluations or even mediocre ones. Whenever I got a person that management likes and I did not, I would just give her to another supervisor. If I wrote something negative about her my boss would not sign it and I would have to do it again, so I just give her away to someone who does not see what I see.
In an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Get Rid of The Performance Review,” I agree with most of the author, Culbert’s ideas. One example of this is when he talks about objectivity. The performance reviews are supposed to be objective and the same results should come if different people did them for that same person. Just like I said earlier, if I did not like the performance of someone, I would trade her for someone else. I will tell the supervisor why I do not want to do it and they just shrug their shoulders and say oh well the bosses like her.
Culbert describes his 7 reasons for hating performance reviews and he finishes up by suggesting the use of performance previews instead of performance reviews. The only good thing about his idea is that it engages the supervisor and the subordinate to discuss what makes the team thrive, suffer and how to fix it. There should be always be communication between the two, but his performance previews would not end up like that. When it all comes down to it, the supervisor is still judging the subordinate and the subordinate still wants to get paid more. It is the same thing. All he did was get rid of the piece of paper, make more work for the supervisor, and take away production time for the company.