Just how useful are traditional performance evaluations? According to a recent study by SHRM and Globoforce, not very. 45% of the HR professionals surveyed reported that performance reviews are not an accurate appraisal of employees' performance. And 42% don't believe that employees are given rewards commensurate with their performance.
Is anyone really surprised by these statistics? I mean, when was the last time you heard a group of HR professionals, managers, or even employees, cheer enthusiastically about the value of the performance review?
Okay, after you've stopped laughing hysterically at the thought, consider the suggestion of Globoforce CEO Eric Mosely in his post on the Harvard Business Review Blog. Mosely's idea is to "crowdsource" your organization's next performance reviews. In other words, solicit regular feedback from everyone who works with employee being reviewed. Don't limit your sources to only the employee's manager or direct supervisor. And don't wait until the end of the year and expect the reviewer to have sudden recall of the past 12 months.
I'm not entirely sold on the idea, frankly, but also am not entirely opposed to it. How could I be opposed to an improved performance-evaluation system? After all, I, too, am an employee and I, too, suffer through the annual review process. But crowdsourcing?
One concern I would have is the potential karma-inducing effect. If I know that my annual review is dependent on ongoing commentary made by coworkers, I wonder if I wouldn't, consciously or subconsciously, dole out extra servings of positive commentary to my own coworkers in the hope that they would feel the love and pass it right back to me. Would we, at the end of the day just be patting one another on the back as a defensive mechanism?
How can the idea be improved? I do have one suggestion--remove the "independent" factor. Instead of having coworkers give their comments independent from and without the input of others, who may also be submitting feedback. Instead, what if the commenters were required, at least once a year, to meet and discuss the comments they've given or intend to give.
At least in the legal profession, my colleagues and I have no problem battling it out to defend our positions. If reasonable minds and voices can prevail, such a discussion may give commenters a more accurate perspective with which to frame their comments prior to their submission.
I can imagine that this technique would be particularly beneficial where an instance of poor performance was an isolated instance. If the commenter was able to hear about positive performance examples, it may help put the negative experience into context. Or, if a commenter has unreasonably high expectations, hearing others discussing their own standards may, again, provide some needed context.
At the end of the day, as I've previously written, it's hard to write a good performance evaluation. Any effort to improve a defunct system is a positive step in the right direction. Even if it doesn't remove all of the flaws, forward is always better, so I'd encourage employers to try it and see whether it works for their particular workforce.