Annual performance review not enough, experts say

For many managers and employees alike, performance reviews are a dreaded annual ritual.

They can be time-consuming and often don’t reflect an accurate picture of an employee’s performance — part of the reason 37 percent of respondents in a recent TINYpulse survey said the performance review process was outdated.

Millennials were more stressed by the traditional annual review process than their older Gen X and baby boomer counterparts, according to the survey. Younger workers want “continuous feedback and mentoring,” says Matt Hulett, chief product officer at Seattle-based TINYpulse, a provider of employee engagement surveys.

Nearly a quarter of Millennials said they fear going into their review, compared to 16 percent of Gen Xers and 14 percent of baby boomers, notes Hulett.

And 41 percent of respondents overall said they’ve had an unfair or biased review, while 42 percent felt something important was left out due to “recency bias.” That’s when a manager remembers “things that happened 30 or 60 days ago, but tends to forget the things that happened six to 12 months ago,” says Christine Ippolito, principal at Deer Park HR consultants Compass Workforce Solutions.

• Regular feedback. She said performance reviews are still relevant, but more frequent, regular feedback is needed. “At the pace our society moves and business changes, only giving comprehensive feedback once a year is not sufficient,” says Ippolito.

That’s why ClearVision Optical in Hauppauge, a designer and distributor of eyewear, doesn’t do annual reviews. “We put a lot of emphasis on ongoing dialogue,” says Jen Trakhtenberg, ClearVision’s senior talent leader.

• Surveys, chats. Among its efforts, ClearVision distributes electronic surveys several times a year to gauge employee sentiment on various topics. Following a survey, the company conducts one-on-one “talent chats” between employees and their direct managers or a member of the talent management team to discuss topics in more depth, says Trakhtenberg.

They also hold “living room chats” with eight- to 12-person focus groups at least once a year, to talk about various issues including overall performance expectations. ClearVision encourages managers to engage in open conversations about performance regularly, she notes.

• Fear factor. The problem with a performance review is “it creates this very big meeting that causes anxiety because you’re waiting for the verdict, rather than having a continuous flow of discussion,” says Trakhtenberg.

Still, most organizations aren’t doing away with reviews altogether, according to Brian Kropp, HR practice leader with Arlington, Virginia-based CEB, a research and tech company. Instead they are adjusting the frequency with which feedback is being provided and trying alternatives to the traditional scoring systems that companies use.

• Real-time insight. Some companies are even using real-time performance management apps or software. TINYpulse, for example, offers a mobile application that lets managers and employees rate and track performance and set goals weekly. Other performance management solution providers include Impraise and Workday.

The point is to provide feedback more than once a year.

“Ongoing feedback improves employee productivity and reinforces goals and expectations,” notes Kropp.

At the very least, managers should have quarterly performance reviews, says Andrew Kimler, a partner at the law firm of Vishnick McGovern Milizio LLP in Lake Success.

• Details, honesty. When you discuss performance, be specific and honest and don’t engage in generalities, he advises, adding you should have specifics you can point to, both good and bad.
• Live in the moment. If a problem arises before your quarterly meeting, address it immediately and document it, says Kimler.

“Reinforce the positive behavior, and if people are doing something wrong, tell them in the moment so they can fix it,” adds Ippolito.