Manager Appraisals
Last week I wrote about the self-appraisal, its purpose and primary benefits. This week we move onto manager appraisals. As is usually the case with annual processes that are not directly linked to frontline business activity, they can often feel like a chore. The deadlines are arbitrary, the documentation and training are formulaic and the experience usually sub-optimal. I want to change the thinking around this. None of what follows is new, but I believe that if we focus on what drives value in an organization, the incentives to actively engage with the appraisal process should increase.
Feedback is probably the single-greatest aid to human development. The most direct form of feedback is when we try something new and observe the results. Additionally, there is verbal and non-verbal feedback we give ourselves and get from others. All these types of feedback are valuable and can be used separately or in combination. Given that most organizations are arranged as a hierarchy with people focused on specific areas that ladder up to overall results, feedback from line managers should be one of the most effective and valuable tools by which staff can improve and develop their skills and align their priorities and efforts with company objectives.
The biggest problem with manager appraisals is that they are set-up as a formal annual process. If the only feedback we receive happens once a year when the company mandates a conversation between ourselves and our line manager, how much good will this be for development? Anything we were doing that was counterproductive may have been left unchecked for up to a year. Conversely, if we did something well at the beginning of the year, and it wasn’t acknowledged, we may not have been incentivized to repeat the action and the company has missed out on the benefits. To avoid this, development conversations and feedback should be a frequent part of 1:1 discussions during the year. It doesn’t need to be labelled as feedback and can be more conversational. But performance, approach and results should be discussed when relevant and not left as a surprise during an annual meeting towards the end of the year.
If the feedback is given on a regular basis, the actual scheduled appraisal should become an easier task. Referencing back to last week’s post on the self-appraisal, any sensible employee in receipt of some direct feedback (either positive or critical) during the year should reference that in their own appraisal together with their explanation of how they have adapted to that feedback. If this happens then the manager can focus on whether those adaptations have been successful. An annual appraisal that covers ground that is well known to both the appraisee and appraiser, makes a joint assessment of performance in the year to date and signals the direction for further development in the year to come, is the gold standard. Maybe something has come to light in the last quarter that is being raised for the first time, but this should be the exception rather than the norm. We tend to place greater emphasis on recent everts and it is important that they are not given undue prominence when assessing the full years’ performance.
The actual appraisal itself is a mix of high-level thoughts and detailed examples. The high-level thoughts frame the discussion and provide the lens through which the appraisal can be understood. It holds the discussion together and provides the theme. The detailed examples should be well known to both parties and not introduced as a surprise during the process. A reasonable question here is why bother with detailed examples if they have already been discussed earlier in the year? The main reason is that examples ground the discussion to ensure that the review isn’t dominated by feelings, impressions and other intangible instincts and contains enough specifics to justify the overall appraisal. It also keeps us honest as line managers. If we are forced to scrabble around for examples of some development points at the end of the year, we have fallen back into the trap of treating the appraisal as an annual tick-box exercise which won’t help improve performance and will more likely result in staff dissatisfaction.
Finally, appraisal comments do not need to be long. The discussion can take as long as required to cover the details, but the actual written submission should be short and limited to a couple of key points. In my experience, very few people reference manager comments in appraisals after they have been completed and filed. Most employees have the conversation, receive the written feedback, quickly confirm it is in line with the earlier conversation, check their overall grade (if the company does grades), click submit and get on with their lives. Given this, writing reams of detailed comments is a waste of effort. One of my best experiences was at a company that had tight restrictions on the length of written comments for both appraisees and appraisers. The process was not substantially quicker as I had to think carefully about what I wrote, but it did force everyone to be succinct.
To conclude, feedback is important as it is one of the primary ways we develop our skills. Annual appraisals only exist as a formal register of conversations that should be happening frequently during the year. If they aren’t happening frequently, then there are probably performance improvements that are being missed that will eventually work their way through to financial performance. Investing the effort during the year is directly rewarded by making the annual check points quick and easy to complete.
Next week is on adapting to working in a different culture when moving abroad.