http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2015/07/21/in-big-move-accenture-will-get-rid-of-annual-performance-reviews-and-rankings/

I agree with most of the points that are made in this article. And I hate doing my annual review.

Will this be a trend?

Post project debriefs and coaching are good things


Annual reviews are waste of everyone's fuxking tiem.

at my last job we would get our year goals in July, midyears in Sept and year ends in early Dec. They were just a check box for HR really. At my current place we actually get them on time but you can tell they are just something to put in a file.

Good riddance.

Jan 27 was my last annual review and its a day I'll never forget, its the day I realized I was on the "not much plan" at my company. I was told by my manager that while I was doing an excellent job the company had no money for raises and that my bonus opportunity was going to be reduced by 30%. I was then told, and I quote, "not to worry, were going to give you 40% more jobs this year".

I walked out of that meeting with a brand new plan and I'm eagerly counting the days until I can turn in my notice. In this instance I am thankful for that annual review, it was life changing.

I worked somewhere that seemed to want to get rid of the annual review, but was told by HR not to do it. I think they basically agreed that it wasn't a great use of time, but they were worried about legal stuff if they let someone go without a bad performance review.

It is definitely a CYA. I have been a few places that attempted to make them meaningful, but it usually fell flat.

I work for Accenture and this makes me happy. However, it was a little interesting that the news came from Washington Post first and not an internal communication. We just received the internal comm today.

I hope they're ready for the brown-nosing to begin. My company switched to a similar system two years ago, and it has been a disaster.

Since we no longer record performance, when we're comparing people at the same level to determine raises and bonuses, it has turned into an entirely subjective process. While I know how well people on my tea, perform, I have no idea how others performed unless I hear about it. Thus, the highest raises and bonuses go to those who toot their own horn and suck up the most.

It does save a lot of time, not having to write up narratives and ratings after each project finishes, (and it saves hurt feelings of millennials who can't handle bad feedback) but it destroys our ability to properly reward the highest performers and coach up or out the lowest performers.

Don't get me wrong, though. Millennials LOVE this system, because you cant review performance anymore, so they can never receive bad feedback.

DeLaHonta,
That is definitely the challenge. I would be all for dismantling the performance appraisal process but how do you still maintain an objective system that rewards high performers? I think my company is trying to find something in the middle that works. Your example is liberal utopia where accountability is thrown out the window.

Historically, we had the annual review like everyone else and it was worthless. in the last 2-3 years there has been a huge focus, almost a doubling down if you will, on bolstering our performance appraisal process. We, the leaders, now do annual talent reviews where we discuss all of our employees as a group and we are expected to basically do monthly mini-PAs with each of our employees. The official write up is still done annually but we treat the concept as an ongoing, year round process. In other words, you should never show up to a PA and be surprised about what you and your leader discuss. If you are, then your leader has failed in their responsibility.

It seems like you need some kind of objective measuring system in place since we are all dipping into the same pool of money for bonus because otherwise a few players are going to game the system like you mentioned. So, not sure what best practice is but it has to be somewhere in the middle of the annual review and doing nothing.

quote:

---

That is definitely the challenge. I would be all for dismantling the performance appraisal process but how do you still maintain an objective system that rewards high performers? I think my company is trying to find something in the middle that works. Your example is liberal utopia where accountability is thrown out the window.

---

I'm an HR professional - going "ratingless" is all the rage these days and a very common topic in the HR arena.

I don't have hard facts to back this up, but I've read anecdotaly that nearly every company that has gone to a ratingless system has regretted it.

This editorial hit my Feedly list this morning and I thought it was a good read on the topic:

http://www.hrexaminer.com/performance-reviews-the-process-doesnt-suck-people-do/


I find it amusing that companies hire and spend billions on managers with fancy MBA's and degrees of all sorts to create models, analyze and make decision on the efficient use of capital and equipment yet completely muck it up when it comes performance analysis of people.

Every time one of my managers goes into *****ing mode about performance management, I put it right back at them that we pay them an awful lot to make capital allocation decisions based on performance analysis and that we should be able to apply many of the same principles here.

I quoted just a portion of YouBet's post for my response, but really his whole post is bang on correct.

I also think too many companies make it overly complicated.

It really doesn't need to be more than an early in the year discussion around what the priorities are, what will be tackled and what good results look like, followed by frequent progress reports, the more informal the better in my opinion.

quote:

---

It does save a lot of time, not having to write up narratives and ratings after each project finishes, (and it saves hurt feelings of millennials who can't handle bad feedback) but it destroys our ability to properly reward the highest performers and coach up or out the lowest performers.

Don't get me wrong, though. Millennials LOVE this system, because you cant review performance anymore, so they can never receive bad feedback.

---

I would dispute your assessment of Millennials here. One of the best things to happen to me during my short career was being passed over for a leadership opportunity by a Gen X project manager who felt I didn't have enough "experience" to be valuable to the program. I was getting a bit lax because my boomer boss never provided me any constructive feedback. I used getting passed up as motivation and 1.5 years later I've jumped the project manager who passed me over.

Sounds like you deal with or manage Millennials, I'd suggest you challenge them, they may react differently than you expect. Don't be like my (former) boomer boss who never provided any constructive feedback.

Deloitte started a pilot program in certain groups earlier this year that is almost a hybrid. You still get a 1-5 rating on two questions, but it is as you roll off each project, Then there are two yes or no questions at the end of each project. I am sure you still have check-ins consistently throughout the year as you roll off projects with your mentor or whoever used to do annual reviews.

- Given what I know of this person's performance, and if it were my money, I would award this person the highest possible compensation increase and bonus. 1-5
- Given what I know of this person's performance, I would always want him or her on my team. 1-5

- This person is at risk for low performance: Yes or No.
- This person is ready for promotion today: Yes or No.

For both Deloitte and Accenture, it is a little easier due to the nature of consulting, but we will all have to wait for 2-3 years before the effects are really known of either policy.

quote:

---

I hope they're ready for the brown-nosing to begin. My company switched to a similar system two years ago, and it has been a disaster.

Since we no longer record performance, when we're comparing people at the same level to determine raises and bonuses, it has turned into an entirely subjective process. While I know how well people on my tea, perform, I have no idea how others performed unless I hear about it. Thus, the highest raises and bonuses go to those who toot their own horn and suck up the most.

It does save a lot of time, not having to write up narratives and ratings after each project finishes, (and it saves hurt feelings of millennials who can't handle bad feedback) but it destroys our ability to properly reward the highest performers and coach up or out the lowest performers.

Don't get me wrong, though. Millennials LOVE this system, because you cant review performance anymore, so they can never receive bad feedback.

---

I don't know what "millennials" you work with, but they aren't the same ones I work with. I also feel this is an unfair generalization. Most millennials that I work with are driven individuals that just want to be judged for their work. NOT for brown-nosing. There is plenty of accountability in a hybrid system. In fact, most young professionals these days accept negative feedback much more openly than their older peers (in my experience giving that feedback). Then again, I'm not managing a starbucks or some other job dealing with a bunch of in debt students with useless degrees.

You don't think brownnosers have always advanced? Hell, most of the brownnosers I have ever seen in a company are in their 30s-40s now. It's always going to be an epidemic and managers will always favor those that are in their good graces or those whom they like.

You all think I'm exaggerating about millennials, but I am not. The average age of an employee at my company is 27 years, so I work with a TON of them.

As a 100% true, not embellished at all example:
I had a new employee two years ago come to my desk with a small Tupperware container full of Skittles. She said, "I know you don't like handing out compliments all the time, so I was hoping you could just give me a Skittle each time you think I do a good job on something." It saddens me to say that this girl is not only an A&M grad, but has a Master's degree from A&M.

I give out positive feedback when I legitimatey think performance warrants it, and I do mean that. However, this millennial literally couldn't handle not receiving positive feedback for each task completed on any given workday, and wanted a Skittle as a reward like a 6 year old.

Now, I acknowledge this is an extreme circumstance, but I would imagine any study out there would indicate that millennials entering the workforce now require much more frequent positive feedback, which is why companies are moving towards these real-time non-performance based evaluation systems.

I also admit that I am a member of the millennial generation, but am several years into the workforce.

I didn't mean to derail the thread by talking about millennials.

My original point is that these new evaluation systems lead to a 100% subjective review process for raises and bonuses. Since nothing is documented anymore, you can't even look at historical performance to identify trends or even see if old constructive feedback was taken to heart and adopted. Further, with remote working and inter-office employee sharing becoming more and more common, it's becoming increasingly difficult to evaluate employees of your own office, because they might never physically be there or might not even work on your own projects.

Each year, it becomes a he said/she said affair. It's not about who performs the best, it's about who speaks up the most. It has always been a subjective process, but there was at least hard performance data you could use to back it up.

We recently had lots of executive turnover, including the VP of HR and we went to a system similar to this. We are a non-profit, so we don't have bonuses, and our merit increases are lame. The average tenure at the office is probably 6+ years if not higher.

Our previous annual reviews, had an employee contribution piece and a management piece. Most people had a fluffy review using the "writing assistant" and most managers responded with standard useless "writing assistant" BS, making the process useless.

That said, I had been doing the same thing since my reviews were always quick and easy and ratings were high it didn't matter.

Then my supervisor was promoted to manager, and I believe he was threatened by me by things he said and some of the games he would try and play (he was ultimately demoted and moved to a different department), but all that said my review was where I could list specific examples (and I listed every single one I had) so there was no way he could insert subjective BS and screw me, which was the vibe I got leading into the review. It definitely helped me. Our current model would have left me out to dry (I'm on the mgmt side now, so I try and make the coaching session meaningful)--so I can see both sides.

The ratings and reviews are typically treated as BS busy work and few people give it the honest attention it needs to be effective because they are too busy actually working instead of making notes on how great they are and what they did to deserve recognition. The people that did that stuff always seemed too focused on themselves instead of their jobs and performance. And so much of it is always done just to comply with policy and get it over with.

quote:

---

- Given what I know of this person's performance, and if it were my money, I would award this person the highest possible compensation increase and bonus. 1-5
- Given what I know of this person's performance, I would always want him or her on my team. 1-5

- This person is at risk for low performance: Yes or No.
- This person is ready for promotion today: Yes or No.

---

This is fair and i really like it. But I would change the phrase "compensation increase" with just "compensations"

I really hate the way we base everything on raises and not on the resulting compensation. For example, I inherited a fantastic employee that became my best employee but he was one of my lowest compensated employees because he joined the company at such a low level.

So even after giving him the highest raises I could he was still making about 30% less than his peers.

How, What, Where and Y from Rich Dad Radio Show: In-Your-Face Advice on Investing, Personal Finance, & Starting a Business - http://stitcher.com/s?eid=39829905


Here's a really interesting take on the mellinial generation by RDPD. Great podcast

I don't think you actually read the article. They are still reviewing performance, it'll just be after each project and not just once per year. You could say this because of millenials since it's been said they need consistent feedback.

I think that this is first and foremost a way to enhance profits. I put this right up there with getting rid of keeping track of vacation time, so that you don't have to pay it out when people leave.

If there is no performance review, there is no way to hold your boss accountable for increasing your pay based on your improved performance. I think that this is as much about getting rid of negotiating leverage in raise discussions as anything else.

quote:

---

I think that this is first and foremost a way to enhance profits. I put this right up there with getting rid of keeping track of vacation time, so that you don't have to pay it out when people leave.

If there is no performance review, there is no way to hold your boss accountable for increasing your pay based on your improved performance. I think that this is as much about getting rid of negotiating leverage in raise discussions as anything else.

---

(Excluding sales and highly compensated tallent) where does this happen for the the typical employee?

Every company I have worked for with more than 100 employees has handled raises that same way

Hr/compensation sends each manager an email saying "here are the raises for your reports. Let them know" the only negotiations are if you are satisfied that you work was rewarded or you are pissed and you start slacking until you start you new job.

The exception has been with traditional professional services firms (LLPs not corporate ) where the practice partners have a lot of latitude.

quote:

---

I find it amusing that companies hire and spend billions on managers with fancy MBA's and degrees of all sorts to create models, analyze and make decision on the efficient use of capital and equipment yet completely muck it up when it comes performance analysis of people.

Every time one of my managers goes into *****ing mode about performance management, I put it right back at them that we pay them an awful lot to make capital allocation decisions based on performance analysis and that we should be able to apply many of the same principles here.

---

I'd take it seriously if just one time HR didn't change my reviews or disregard them when it worked to their advantage.

Nothing better than going to bat for a high performer only to have HR ignore their own process or rating system for someone they've never met or actually worked with. No different than following all the guidelines of documentation, improvement plans, and reviews to hopefully fire a bad apples only to watch it never happen.

I had to execute them at my last job(retail) because I was not in charge. I just had Operations.

With my new company(retail) I am in charge and am more or less doing away with them. I am executing one round only because none of my employees(160) have had ANY kind of performance evaluation or any real feedback of any kind for five years. So after six months I am having my DMs give one round to the salaried managers and the managers giving one round to their assistant using an old fairly generic form. A part of that is just to get into their heads that feedback is a part of their job. After that they will be quarterly, mostly financial with some leadership. One thing about retail is you get reviewed every month when the P&L comes in.

Feedback and support are the most important thing a manager can give a subordinate. But an annual often misses the point.

quote:

---

I think that this is first and foremost a way to enhance profits. I put this right up there with getting rid of keeping track of vacation time, so that you don't have to pay it out when people leave.

If there is no performance review, there is no way to hold your boss accountable for increasing your pay based on your improved performance. I think that this is as much about getting rid of negotiating leverage in raise discussions as anything else.

---

I dont agree with that, at least not in the worlds I have operated in. And I dont know of any other business managers that have intentionally taken this approach. I doubt it is widespread. I am sure it has happened and may have unfortunately happened to you.

We had years during the recession where we did not give raises but that did not stop us(rightly) from giving reviews.


That being said, raises dont have to go around reviews. In my new company(see post above) my raises, after this year, will not be around any kind of reviews. The problem with setting that expectation is exactly that, it sets the expectation whether they have or have not earned it. I have a separate calendar that will show me who has had raises and when and it will be something I check monthly. When it is time in my mind I or my DM will take that person to lunch and give them a raise and the rest of the day off. T

quote:

---

Since we no longer record performance, when we're comparing people at the same level to determine raises and bonuses, it has turned into an entirely subjective process. While I know how well people on my tea, perform, I have no idea how others performed unless I hear about it. Thus, the highest raises and bonuses go to those who toot their own horn and suck up the most.

---

And you don't think this happens within the annual review process as well..... If a manager likes you regardless of your performance he is going to rate you well and give you an increase. It should be the managers you have a beef with not the employee for "tooting their own horn" as they are the ones rewarding the employee.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since we no longer record performance, when we're comparing people at the same level to determine raises and bonuses, it has turned into an entirely subjective process. While I know how well people on my tea, perform, I have no idea how others performed unless I hear about it. Thus, the highest raises and bonuses go to those who toot their own horn and suck up the most.

---

And you don't think this happens within the annual review process as well..... If a manager likes you regardless of your performance he is going to rate you well and give you an increase. It should be the managers you have a beef with not the employee for "tooting their own horn" as they are the ones rewarding the employee.

---

Ethical Managers don't do this. I dont do it and once it ultimately killed a relationship. A guy that worked for me was a friend of mine and I liked him. He had good ideas but never executed them. Was constantly wanting a promotion or salary increases which I refused to grant because his performance didn't warrant it. He ultimately left the company over it after working there 15 years and I've never heard from him again.

Ultimately the prose based feedback is usually worthless. You need objective metrics. In consulting

Hours Billed
Hours Collected
ROI on Internal Activities (which is subject to fudge many times)

quote:

---

Ultimately the prose based feedback is usually worthless. You need objective metrics. In consulting

Hours Billed
Hours Collected
ROI on Internal Activities (which is subject to fudge many times)

---

The hours billed thing always burned me....I typically billed at a higher rate than my peers and was able to generate more revenue but my utilization was always in the crapper because I was selectively put on higher billing projects.


So I might be lucky to hit 1600 hrs a year but I would bring in more revenue than the guy billing 2200 hours a year.