I've been a people manager for 13 years in the software industry here in Indiana. (Yes, Indiana has software companies. We're the Silicon Cornfield!) I give quarterly performance reviews. While the process isn't perfect, it provides enough value that I keep at it. My experience has been that performance reviews work when the manager works to build trust relationships with his/her people.

I'm a big believer in partnering with the people who work for (with) me to build success. Looking at it mercinarily, I can't be successful unless my direct reports are, so it is in my best interest to help them succeed.

I tell my people about my basic review philosophy — that it is supposed to be an ongoing conversation about expectations and performance, not a hit-and-run smack upside the head; and that my review feedback is to a large extent my perception of their performance (as I currently have 11 reports and can't possibly keep up with everything they do) and, as such, can be wrong. I tell everyone that if they think I'm upside down on any performance feedback I give, that if they can make a cogent and supportable argument as to why, I will change my mind and correct my feedback. If they can't convince me, then I am 100% open to them managing my perception by showing me as they continue to work how they are behaving differently from my perception. Sometimes, when my critical feedback is right but the recipient doesn't want to admit it, this is enough to get them to improve their behavior and show me, without them having to lose as much face. That's fine with me — the goal is not agreement that I'm right, but improved behavior!

Unfortunately, it usually takes one to two years for someone who works for me to become comfortable with all of this and believe that, to the best of my ability, I have their success in mind. So many people who have worked for me have told me horror stories about reviews from other managers. I've been given a couple boldly unjust reviews in my time, as well.

One thing I have yet to figure out is how to routinely get good feedback from my people about how I'm doing. The trust relationships I've built make them comfortable telling me when they think I'm on the wrong track, but that's more in the moment and I'd welcome more comprehensive feedback. Moreover, it's been a long time since I've been in the trenches doing actual work like they do; technology has moved on and so their day-to-day work often involves skills I lack. They know things I don't know. I need their continual honest input to make the best decisions.

The BEST text I've read on managing staff in a church setting (even our small church with just a couple staff other than myself) is "When Moses Meets Aaron". This greatly helped me in handling a difficult staff member that I inherited when I became pastor, leading to his dismissal, to writing the job description and hiring someone new. I highly recommend it.http://www.amazon.com/When-Moses-Meets-Aaron-Cong…

As to your post specifically, I find some sort of accountability has to be in place to hold staff and even volunteers, and especially myself, to the goals that we've set in ministry. Still, it doesn't make performance reviews any easier.

I had had some experience as Jim above.. I treat reviews as ongoing conversation, and make sure the employees understand this is for their benefit. I go all the way to telling them that even if it means I will lose them, I will make sure I do everything possible to see them succeed. We have mandated by HR once per year reviews, but I try to do a review of goals about once or twice more during the year, so that the review is no "surprise". This helps to take most of the anxiety part out of it.. As busy as managers are, I think reviews could be a good thing, because it forces us to stop and think and talk about things that may just not come up in day-to-day conversation.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Tim Stevens, karenbyrne. karenbyrne said: RT @timastevens: "The most pretentious, fraudulent, ill-advised exercise is an annual performance review." Agree? http://bit.ly/btvTf8 [...]

Very, very interesting. I guess my thoughts are how do you reward those in your organization who are living out the values, living up to their purpose and potential and also weed out those who are keeping the team behind by their lack of performance and lack of effort. Each work place has both, how does one manage to send the message of leadership and vision that what matters is that working hard and team work keeps you in the game and lack of effort and dedication will leave you on the sidelines of opportunities?
This is my questions if (they, or you, the company) chooses NOT to use performance/evaluations?
M_

I agree with Dan & Bruno. In my free ebook, "31 Refutably Irrefutable Laws of Lame Leadership," (http://www.scribd.com/doc/273295/31-Refutably-Irr… ) I refer to an "annual review only" mindset to "#12. The Law of the Side Swipe."

"This law is also known as the 'law of the big slam' or the 'punch in the gut.' Allow your team to make mistakes and get off track throughout the year without course corrections from you along the way. Then spring a long list on them at the 'annual review." Be sure that they are caught off guard and flustered as they try to defend themselves."

A year just seems like a long time to go without communicating about performance, etc. If the communication is happening more frequently, the "annual review" becomes either a formality or not necessary.

I think of reviews as adding a page to an employee's history which wouldn't be documented otherwise. They are only as good as the person doing the review. This is a chance to discuss skillset, improvements, policy, benefits, and make sure you are on the same page. There are intangible benefits as well which I think are related to stewardship of church resources.especially in a church that doesn't have an HR person, or strong administrative leadership.

I think the author has some good points. At our church, annual performance appraisals are the norm. Several years back before some leadership changes, I would annually receive a review that would list all of these "issues" that I needed to deal with – stuff that was never brought up to me all year long. For instance, "Be more proactive in working out conflict with parents." My response when reading it: "What conflict?" Their reply: "Some parents have come to us and told us that they have some issues with some things you've done or said to them or their kid." My response: "Really? I haven't had a single parent come to me to tell me that there was an issue." Their reply: "Well they came to us and told us about it." Me: "Can you give me some names so I can go talk with them and apologize and work this out?" Them: "No, that would breach confidentiality. If they wanted you to know, they would come to you." Me: "WHAT?!?!?!?!?" Stuff like this would go on year after year. Besides being completely ludicrous, its unbiblical. I'd point that out to them and that wouldn't matter too much. I begged them that if something came up throughout the year to just let me know so it could be dealt with immediately. Never. And so for that reason I agree with the author and how they can drive wedges between the reviewer and reviewee, how it can lower morale (I never wanted to leave so badly), etc. However, if done correctly where they are a review of what happened over the year (of stuff already discussed and dealt with and celebrated, goals accomplished and not accomplished) and are about setting goals for the coming year – they work just fine. That's the way it is now for me with new leadership. I enjoy that time each year because I already know what we're talking about when we get together.

When i first saw a blurb about this book, my first thoughts were (a) this is the logical result of a society that stopped keeping score in kid's games and (b) it came across to me as "don't do performance reviews because somebody's feeling's might get hurt".

I've led fairly large church staffs before and I did reviews twice per year. BUT I wanted to know how I could help them succeed. We agreed on annual goals and then worked to accomplish them. Can't remember who said it but "what gets rewarded/measured is what gets done". Sometimes this is said in a negative light but I believe you can use it in a positive way.

They certainly are never easy, but I do think they are necessary. The only reason I could see giving them the boot would be because you already have such a good system in place of constant, more frequent review.

"As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." – Proverbs 27:17

"No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it." – Hebrews 12:11

Performance reviews are horrible if it's the only time employees hears how they are doing. Done properly, there shouldn't really be any real surprises. Nobody should hear – "You know that thing you've been doing for 8 months? – I hate that". On the flip side, If compensation is at all tied to performance, then I think there should be some way of documenting that performance. It doesn't have to be a formal review, maybe just notes put in a file. Regular communication with the employee should trump the one time annual review. In other words, there should be some sort of relationship.

My experience with the "Annual Review" has been quite poor. Here are a few of the problems:
1) The person giving the review should come prepared.
I personally love a critical critique because I want to grow and I want direction on how I can better the organization I'm serving. All to often the reviews I've sat in have been filled with vague concepts and little facts.
2) The time frame is far too long.
If you write down objectives and goals at this review (which should happen) a twelve month span before reviewing them is death to them. It's good to have a few long range goals but to not have short range goals with accountability built in along the way will breed procrastination and frustration at review time. Too much changes and most of the Annual Review will be about how things changed instead of what was accomplished.

It is my belief that two lengthy reviews (1-2 hours) should be done per calendar year to set objectives and goals. Brief meetings (5-10 minutes) every other month should serve to review the goals for progress and changing realities. If your staff is too large to accommodate these meetings due to time then you probably should evaluate your manager style and start to release some reviews to other people.

The only people that fear reviews should be the people who know they are bringing the ship down. We should enjoy our successes and be engaged in healthy conversation about how we can better serve, better train and fulfill more goals for the glory of God.

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by timastevens: “The most pretentious, fraudulent, ill-advised exercise is an annual performance review.” Agree? http://bit.ly/btvTf8...

Great conversation! We're big fans of Sam Culbert's approach. Performance reviews have their place (in Churches and in business), but top managers know to coach their people rather than giving them a hit-and-run smack upside the head once a year (great imagery Jim!).

There's some more great conversation happening on this topic at Make Work Meaningful, a collaborative conversation on the future of work. Check out the Performance Management section for some posts on the topic:http://makeworkmeaningful.com/section/performance…

Very much on topic pitch: you guys should check out Rypple too. We provided a web-based tool for fast feedback and quick coaching that helps managers motivate, align, and develop their teams. Our Coach tool is all about making 1:1 coaching conversations happen regularly and capturing actions, notes, and kudos all in one place. More info athttp://rypple.com.

I give yearly performance reviews at the company I work for. Though I haven't read as many books on the subject as some of you out there, I do have a lot of experience in both receiving and giving reviews. My company gives me free rein on the employees to give both accurate and informative reviews. We give our employees the opportunities to express themselves throughout the year (an open door policy)or whenever a problem arises. We are a small company so we encourage legitimate complaints. In a larger company these could perceived as whining policies.

I see reviews as an opportunity to be personally connected to each employee on a professional one on one level.

We believe we are giving the best to our employees because we believe the employees do the best that they can for the company. Our people expect to be payed for every minuet that they're on the clock but do they work for every minuet that they are being payed? Absolutely. We have the best employees because its easy to see that our leaders that work here too way harder than anyone else even me. So by example these people really never complain. The expectations are always made clear. And should be again on occasion. Reviews.

Matthew 20:11-13
When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius?

I disagree with them. I think that reviews need to be an ongoing thing in day to day operation, but it also needs to be at least an annual meeting so that you can cover the "big" issues and to make sure you both are on the same page. There view seems to be another example of an author setting up a straw man argument and then ranting against it. The way that he describes reviews would only take place in a company that must already have a lot of dysfunctional things going on which job reviews would be the least of their problems.

If you have a healthy working environment with good relationships, reviews are a good thing. If you don't have a healthy environment with good relationships, then maybe you need to have a few job reviews with the people causing it.

i've never gotten anything less than the maximum pay raise and positive assessment, each and every time i've been reviewed, so i have no problem with them.
i guess my point is that the effectiveness (or lack thereof) really depends on the personality (and awesomeness) of the worker

Annual performance appraisals are poor instruments for communicating performance and are completely irrelevant… if leaders are intentional about clearly communicating expectations and progress toward goals. Unfortunately, most don't. That is why companies generally use performance appraisals… not to ensure employees are doing their job, but to ensure managers are. Most leaders won't admit this, but it's true. If every leader is regularly, intentionally, clearly communicating with his or her employees and documenting progress in some way, I wouldn't introduce them.

Interesting points. Our practice is to meet informally every couple of weeks for ongoing conversation, take a look at some goals and objectives every semester – Fall, Spring and Summer and annually take a more in-depth look at ministry and personal trends. There can always be an anomaly in year to year evaluation, but trends seem to give a pretty good picture of what's going on. We try to do all that in the context of relationship. It's certainly not perfect, and it's hard not to fall into the boss/employer trap, but it's sure a lot better than the old school annual hit and run.

Did not read everyone's posts – so this may be duplicate thought.

My experience has been that most reviews are a chore and poorly implemented by the reviewer.

The thing about reviews in church is that the process should be easier with our "discipleship" mentality. But in short, most reviews simply become a hoop through which we jump for diligence sake and out of which very little transparency happens. I am not opposed to performance reviews – but they must contain concrete and strategic information that is delivered within the framework of helping the employee become better at what they already enjoy as a career. The best performance reviews are given by people who have invested themselves in learning to better develop/disciple people. This is not easy nor is it often the priority of organizations they grow in numbers. The church has greatly benefited from authors and experts in the business field – which is where the review process comes from. But that does not mean that all systems transfer into the church world. A great article to begin thinking about this issue was recently posted in CT – "Good to Great to Godly"
http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/communitylife…

One illustration of a poor review I have heard about happened when one pastor received a "does not meet expectations" after several years of glowing reviews. He was left with questions about how he could have slipped so badly in his performance when nothing had been communicated before the review. (Realize there are always two sides to every story) But I do find this to be the norm in my conversations with other churches. Reviews become the place to articulate a change of heart or direction for a certain ministry area that was realized somewhere higher up on the management scale.

My suggestion, learn to disciple people – everyone on staff should bleed this value. Then performance never has to be an issue. The issue then becomes developing your gifts and thriving as a team. And don't mislabel "chemistry" or "lack of drive" for "performance". Call it what it is and allow the employee to wrestle with the heart out of which the observable issues arise.

We are currently considering implementing performance reviews in our organization,http://www.cornerstone-sf.org , for the first time.

When I was in the corporate world we had annual reviews and to be honest, I thoroughly enjoyed that time of year.

I feel like it is a good opportunity to motivate employees to work harder and also to be proud of their accomplishments. Plus, if their bosses love language is not words of affirmation- but the employee's is- then this gives the boss an opportunity to affirm the employee. Employees long to hear when they are doing things right.

It also gives an opportunity for the managers to sharpen the employees in the areas that they need to be sharpened. Plus, maybe an employee is overwhelmed and really needs help and this provides a formal way that the employee can come to their boss regarding the overwhelming issues.

If we are not to be concern with performance but PARTICIPATION .. how about an annual PARTICIPATION review?

Like anything in life, performance reviews done poorly will not succeed. But should we throw the baby out with the bathwater? I think not.

Samuel Culbert is a professor at UCLA who, according to a couple of on-line biographies, doesn't list any practical management experience. One bio stated that his consulting business gave him real-world experience! That's like saying that playing Flight Simulator gives you flying experience!

I think the writer has taken an extreme view of performance evaluations, seeking to find the worse possible misuse of the tool and declaring that to be the norm. Most managers who have been given even minimal training in performance evals know that the discussion must be on-going, not once a year. For most managers, it's not a one-sided conversation as Mr. Culbert declares. Self evaluation often gives the supervisor new insights into an employee's performance. Mr. Culbert states that performance evals focus on negative aspects of performance. My experience is that an eval is a time to celebrate the positive as well as work on areas of improvement.

Mr. Culbert's writings seem to be more of a rant against the establishment than any usable specific information. Consider the following examples of inflamatory language:

"..a one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense".

"I see it (the primary purpose of performance reviews) as intimidation aimed at preserving the boss's authority and power advantage."

"The performance review is simply the place where the boss come up with a story to justify the predetermined pay".

"…too many lines spoken in a performance review are a cover story for the truth and have little to do with performance".

I could go on and on. I believe the writer must have been the victim of a horrible performance review at some time during his life. He offers many conclusions without any research or data to back up his ideas and then goes on to offer what he considers a revolutionary alternative, which is really nothing more than another name for the performance review.