Do you consider performance reviews useful and why?

Question

Hello, all,
It looks like performance reviews are used in virtually any organization. You know, those lists of objectives, values, estimates (achieved, partially achieved, exceeded etc.) And then you'll get bonus and (or) promotion by results. Or won't get.

But there are certain objections against these reviews. E.g. from Joel Spolsky: Measure or Sins of Commissions As far as I remember, DeMarco and Lister also criticized performance reviews. Nevertheless, there are tons of management and HR books about performance reviews and appraisals.

So I feel confused. Obviously, there should be some way to promote software engineers. But performance reviews seem to be extremely subjective, error-prone and demoralizing. I have not enough experience to form my consistent opinion, so I'd like to read opinions of others on this matter:
Are performance review useful and why? What are alternatives?

Answer 1

Ya, I consider them useful.

Some people are self-motivating and others expect an applause for what they have done. Even the inverse is true. Some people realize their mistakes and make sure that they wont repeat; others argue on for what they have done. So, it is always better to have a review and discuss on the issues that others are facing with us and that we are facing. This reduces confusion and increases Productivity.

This again depends on the Appraiser, if there is something wrong its better to tell in diplomatic way rather than pointing their failures and making them depressed.

So, if the Performance reviews are motivating, they are useful.

Answer 2

Performance evaluations are tricky but if conducted properly, they serve a purpose.

Before I start giving my views on Performance Evaluation, I believe you should give positive or negative feedback to your staff as quickly as possible. Don't wait for a performance evaluation. Also, it is important to catch them doing something right as often as possible. I also meet with every reports at least once a month to discuss their overall feelings with their job (positive or negative).

That being said, a formal performance evaluation is useful to discuss career evolution, discuss possible evolutions for an individual and decide together what skillset need to be acquired or refined to reach the next level.

I generally like to focus more on what can be learn in the future rather than on the mistakes that have been made (since those mistakes have been discussed right after they've been identified anyway).

Every person is different and I like to focus on how they can reach their highest potential, whatever that potential may be.

Answer 3

Performance reviews need to be open and honest to be useful.

I definitely need them; i want to regularly hear in what areas i can improve. Yearly reviews are a good way for that, although i think that doing short, informal performance reviews throughout the year is a must too.

Answer 4

Performance reviews are a must if you have more than certain number of people working with you. At the end of the day people would like to know how they performed. Not all of them are self motivated bunch of people and they need some solid proof that they are doing well or bad.

Their goal of living is not same as yours when you are a founder of a company. So it is not necessary for them to be as motivated as you are for your company. For the same reason measuring their performance is necessary.

We have a review system on monthly basis in my company. We have our own software which we use to analyze the performance depending on KPA we want them to perform. If we find certain individual is not doing so well we call him and speak to him. We try to find our what is wrong, what is hindering his performance. Developers are quite satisfied after the discussion we have and they strive to do better next time.

Answer 5

In my experience the nature of the process is inconsistent. The fact of the matter is that every performance manager is a different person. It is very difficult to prevent scenarios like: Employee A performed worse than Employee B but got e better evaluation because performance manager from Employee A is nicer...It is not s soccer game that you can measure who performed better by counting the amount of goals. It is subjective and unfair by its very nature. This inconsistent evaluation criteria and rewards can lead to mistrust, lower productivity and higher attrition.If top performers see no differentiation in performance ratings, opportunities and compensation from underperformers, morale can suffer. I have been using the system for 10 years and receiving good evaluations but never felt particularly motivated by them and never met a colleague that did. On the other hand some good colleagues got motivated to leave the company because received unfair evaluations. Also an annual process will not adequately alert managers to problems in a timely manner. At the end promotions and bonuses will be delivered only when the business permits. You might have programmed the greatest software but if sales were low forget a bonus.

Answer 6

There are useful, with a slew of ifs on them. If the people are open and honest as Alphager states. If the point is to get areas to improve as well as a sense of where one is, then it can be a useful practice.

HR and management books cover this in such detail because while it seems like there should be a good solution, it isn't that easy to find given human nature.

An alterative would be to have reverse evaluations where the direct reports evaluate the boss, which can also be useful but carry similar caution notes. Another alternative would be to not have any formal feedback policies and just let people figure out what they want, but that can get ugly as some people would prefer structure from higher up the corporate ladder.