While leading a session on employee performance improvement, I argued: “Traditional performance evaluation systems hurt vertical progress.”
One participant asked, “What is vertical progress?”
I explained it this way, “Simply put, It’s the action of creating new products, processes, or services that increase a company’s market share, value and influence. The Ipod, Amazon Kindle and Paypal are examples of vertical progress.”
I repeated, “Traditional employee performance metrics do not promote vertical progress.”
A manager in the back of the room retorted, “But I have to hold my employees accountable.” They added, “Using standardized templates and systems to rate and document employee performance establishes a fair process for everyone. Don’t you think?”
I replied, “I don’t think so. Putting all employees in the same box is a terrible mistake.” And I paused. Some people looked at me as if I came from a different planet.
So, I explained myself by doing sharing the two insights below.
Two employee performance evaluation insights
Without further ado, let’s dive in.
Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos, said:
“I think when people say they dread going into work on Monday morning, it’s because they know they are leaving a piece of themselves at home. Why not see what happens when you challenge your employees to bring all of their talents to their job and reward them not for doing it just like everyone else, but for pushing the envelope, being adventurous, creative, and open-minded, and trying new things?”
The father of quality — or the man who revived the Japanese economy from the dead after World War II— Edwards Deming argued:
The merit rating nourishes short-term performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, [and] nourishes rivalry and politics. It leaves people bitter, crushed, bruised, battered, desolate, despondent, dejected, feeling inferior, some even depressed, unfit for work for weeks after receipt of rating, unable to comprehend why they are inferior. It is unfair, as it ascribes to the people in a group differences that may be caused totally by the system that they work in.
He also said:
“The effect is exactly the opposite of what the words promise. Everyone propels himself forward, or tries to, for his own good, on his own life preserver. The organization is the loser.
The merit rating rewards people that conform to the system. It does not reward attempts to improve the system. Don’t rock the boat.”
In other words, traditional employee performance evaluation systems get in the way of company’s progress. That is, it encourages employees to reach average performance standards. It creates average employees that do average work that leads to average products and services.
In conclusion, most traditional employee performance systems are punitive for critical and innovative thinkers and therefore lead to companies’ stagnation or failure to innovate.
Click here to send us your questions. And join our blog to receive our proven Continuous Improvement (CI) insights.