‘Re-appraising appraisals’

‘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.

Read the article here