A new survey reveals what the majority of employees claim are stupid flaws in the annual review process.
The survey, conducted by employee management firm Taleo, found:
- 80% of employees nationwide are dissatisfied with their company’s review process
- 31% believe there should be a stronger correlation between achieving performance goals and salary
- 21% feel high-earning employees are treated more fairly in their performance reviews (and rewarded more handsomely) than those with mid- or low-level positions
- 16% believe performance reviews should occur more than once a year, and
- 11% believe the existing annual review process should be done away with altogether, the assumption being there should be different, tangible criteria for determining when and if employees are eligible for raises.
The consensus seems to be a stricter accounting for how employees can earn a higher salary, rather than an arbitrary process that substitutes praise for pay. A lot of today’s employees feel like the goal of the review has changed from an opportunity to discuss strengths and weaknesses to a chess match, where the employee makes a case for why he/she should be entitled to more and management responds by providing a list of areas where the employee needs to show improvement.
All of which is to be expected, given the current state of the economy and the cost-cutting measures a lot of companies have had to consider.
How do you think the annual review process could be improved? Does your company have a unique strategy for conducting reviews?
Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Source: “Americans Seek Control Over Job Performance,” Sales and Marketing Management Magazine, 4/15/09
BusinessBrief.com delivers the latest business news once a week to the inboxes of over 180,000 executives.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to BusinessBrief!
advertisement
Tags: Compensation, HR, Human Resources, performance, raises, reviews, salary
April 15th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
We believe that salary reviews and performance appraisals are tow distinctly different discussions, albeit, they are related.
Appraisals of performance ideally are based on objective criteria, agreed to by worker and manager at the start of an appraisal period. JActual performance against targets should constitute about 50% of someone’s appraisal rating. Also taken into account should be input from peers, and other people who have interacted with and depended on the worker for their contributions. Attitudes toward their work, the organization, and the people in the organization also should be considered. We beiieve that appraisals are most effective when conducted at least twice in a 12 month period; we recommend quarterly.
Salary reviews, in our opinion, may be held less frequently, depending on the circumstance that exist with the organization. People are hired to do a particular job at a particular pay rate. The organization has the responsibility to create a policy of review to ensure that its people are fairly compensated in light of their performance, the marketplace, financial situation in the organization, and potentially, other unique factors.
Combining these two disparate discussions into one conversation clouds the purpose of both, confuses the appraiser and appraisee, gives short shrift to the primary purpose of each and often, as the survey indicates, creates adversarial relationships.