‘Re-appraising appraisals’ by Tim Baker, Training Journal, July 2013
This
article caught my eye because the topic of appraisal is of interest - and often
the subject of vigorous debate - for most managers and particularly for those in
Learning & Development. It is unusual for anyone we
meet on courses to shower praise on their organisation’s appraisal system; more
often there are complaints that the process is a waste of time or fails to
happen as it should.
The
author starts with a transcript of the famous appraisal interview in ‘The
Office’ television series and, though this is a nice reference, it doesn’t seem
quite so funny in writing and goes on rather too long. But the point is made; in the wrong hands
appraisal interviews can be a disaster, particularly if the system is
over-formalised to comply with a group mandate.
The
author’s contention is that the conventional appraisal system does not
work. His justification for this is his
research into 2,000 managers and HR professionals in Australia and New
Zealand. He does not present any
evidence to prove that this response would also apply in other regions but I
have no doubt that it would. But I am
also convinced that you would find a similar response if you asked about budgeting
or strategic planning systems in big companies; any system which is imposed top
down is seen as providing little value to those who have to cope with the
detail. But that doesn’t necessarily
mean that there is not benefit to the company as a whole.
The
adjectives quoted to describe the problems of appraisal systems include costly,
destructive, formal and stressful; other complaints included form filling,
monologue and a lack of follow up. This is very much in line with concerns we
have heard about when organising courses and were no surprise. But the research only begs the question -
what else would replace it? The author
admits that performance management is one of the most challenging issues that
companies face and that good feedback is the key to success. So an alternative
is needed.
The
alternative suggested by the author is a framework of five conversations, to
take place over six months. Each
conversation has a separate topic and these are:
· Climate
review
· Strengths
and talents
· Opportunities
for growth
· Learning
and Development
· Innovation
and improvement
My
initial reaction to this was that it feels time consuming ,a complaint that is
often made about appraisal systems; ‘we just haven’t had time to fix a meeting’
is a common whinge, often from those who are looking to avoid the interview. Finding space in the diary ten times a year
sounds even more time heavy but then I read on to find that each conversation
should take about 15 minutes. This may
allay complaints about time commitment but it is difficult to imagine
meaningful conversations on such wide-ranging topics in that timescale. An hour would seem realistic and ten hours a
year is perhaps not unreasonable for something as important as this. Whether managers would in practice remember
to fit ten such meetings is another matter; I wondered why not once a month,
which might be easier to remember and to fit into calendars on a regular basis.
The
article describes the likely agenda for each conversation and there is nothing
that one could argue with; the themes are very much what a good appraisal interview
would cover anyway. What this framework seems
to be doing is spreading it over a longer period, which may have its advantages
but also raises questions of practicality.
Would managers be more likely to comply with this system and why would
the complaints above not apply in just the same way? Calling a meeting a conversation doesn’t
necessarily change the dynamic though it is possible that more frequent
meetings might lower the stress levels.
A further concern around time is that the author argues for each meeting
to be recorded in writing but with ‘simplified templates’ which I guess
everybody involved in any kind of appraisal would want to see.
A more
convincing argument is that the separate meeting on Learning & Develoment would allow more
focus on that aspect of the appraisal, though dealing with strengths/talents and
L & D as separate topics might not ensure the best possible linkage. Less convincing was the author’s rather vague
claim that ‘several organisations have replaced their old appraisal system with
the Five Conversations framework’ and ‘the feedback has been generally very
positive’. As I often remark in my article reviews, it is difficult to achieve
credibility without named examples of real success; most organisations do not
mind being mentioned if the product is good and even a description of the size
and sector of the companies involved would make the claim more credible.
This
article introduces an interesting and different approach to appraisal but seems
to depend rather too much on management discipline to ensure that such regular
meetings are held. When choosing this
article to review, I had hoped for more depth on the psychological aspects of
appraisal; I remember once reading an article that claimed that appraisals were
doomed to failure for a different reason; because most people think that their
performance is better than it really is and better than most of their peers. Thus appraisals are always going to
disappoint. Exploring that issue would
be more interesting than this article’s emphasis on changing the title and the
frequency.
