The Annual Performance Review

By Jeffrey Sugerman, president and CEO, and Mark Scullard, director of research, Inscape Publishing

Pretty soon we’ll all be asked to complete our annual rite of passage. It’s the thing we dread most; we quake in our cubicles, we talk about in hushed tones around the coffee maker, yet we dare not speak its name: The Annual Performance Review. Everyone hates performance reviews, right? Wrong.

Positive Overall

We asked 6,489 recent training participants about performance reviews. In this group, 94 percent said their feedback was positive; 87 percent said the review accurately described their performance and behavior; 84 percent of respondents said that their review was useful. Overall, 90 percent said they were glad the review was included as part of their job.

Bad Review Blues

In our survey, only 6 percent of our respondents didn’t interpret their review as positive. How do they feel about performance reviews? In general, they were less inclined to think the review process was fair. This feeling of injustice could be due to the 63 percent who said they were hearing information for the first time. Also not surprising was that only 24 percent would characterize their review as accurate. But what is surprising is that 71 percent of those people who received a bad review were still glad the review process was included as part of their job. And 43 percent said that overall the review was useful. However, only 31 percent said the review process has helped to improve their performance, so clearly there’s work to be done.

Avoiding Poorly Executed Reviews

Overall, only 13 percent of all respondents felt their review was poorly executed. This percentage was much higher if they received a bad review, but most people, 74 percent, who said the review was poorly executed actually received mostly positive feedback.

We’ve come up with four essentials for delivering a well-executed review and ensuring a positive review experience—even when giving not-so-positive feedback.

1. Organization. Lack of organization was sited by 70 percent of people who felt their review was poorly executed. This could be both the sequence and manner in which the information was presented. Also, if people were asked to do things seemingly out of order or without a clear reason, they could be more inclined to cry foul.
2. Clarity. Reviews should help people focus energy. Only 33 percent said their review gave them a better understanding of where to improve. In addition, only 44 percent set goals as part of their review process.
3. Accuracy. More than half of people who received a poorly executed review said it was an accurate description of their performance and behavior. It’s important to have specific examples and to make sure this isn’t the first time people are hearing the information.
4. Reaction. People need to be able to express how they feel about the review, whether it’s positive or negative feedback. People who felt their review was poorly executed were more likely to say their perspective was not heard during the review process.

 Finally, a thought for managers who dutifully complete performance reviews while desperately wishing they could be anywhere else on the planet doing any of 1 million thankless tasks: The performance review process actually makes an important difference in the job satisfaction and professional development of the people who work for you. Employees have a right and a strong desire to know where they stand. We all want to know what constitutes performance and results in our organization, and a successful review process moves everyone forward.

Mark Scullard is the director of research at Inscape Publishing, a provider of training materials for the corporate market. He has more than a decade of research and data analysis experience in the development of psychological evaluation tools and methods. He received his doctorate in psychology from the University of Minnesota, with a supporting program in statistics.

Jeffrey Sugerman is the president and CEO of Inscape Publishing. He has more than 20 years of experience in senior management, marketing, and business development in the technology, training, and publishing industries. Sugerman holds doctorate and master’s degrees in psychology from Washington University in St. Louis, and a bachelor’s degree in psychology from Northwestern University.

Scullard and Sugerman are the co-authors of the forthcoming Berrett-Koehler title, “The 8 Dimensions of Leadership: DiSC Strategies for Becoming a Better Leader.”