Considering all the factors above, my argument-opinion is simple: Performance Reviews-Appraisals are not your enemy.  The performance review-appraisal process cannot and should not become the scapegoat reason for delaying performance feedback nor management’s resistance to utilizing it as a legitimate performance management tool.

Having read opinions that stretch across the spectrum on this issue, the point is that the primary issue with performance reviews/appraisals is the planning that goes behind the process.  The performance review-performance appraisal process, as a component of performance management, should be an essential ingredient in setting and managing expectations within your organization; and, if we, as HR-Business leaders, think that condemning the process is “an out” then my message is ” that dog won’t hunt.”  Such protests are merely excuses to not fully develop and refine the process, so the easy out becomes to blame the tools utilized versus the more accurate inability to employ a robust and effective performance management system.

So the question becomes, “How can we make it better?”  How can we employ our organization’s performance review-performance appraisal process in a method that works consistently and receives the creditability needed to contribute to individual development and delivery of organizational goals and objectives.  Here are some quick – very quick – ways to make it work:

1) Know the desired outcome of the incumbent position.  When we think of performance appraisals,  many managers quickly think, “How will my employees stack against each other?”  However, you must remember that the role of the performance appraisal is to measure the incumbent’s performance against defined outcomes measured carefully against developed performance standards,  position objectives, and the job analysis product the job description, captured by senior managers/leaders and job analysis functional specialists – clinical psychologists, during the workforce planning process.  The standards set forth in performance reviews-appraisals are, but should not be measured against a nominal employee that exceeds the standard(s) – at least, arguably, initially.  In essence: Performance standards are initially defined during the larger strategic planning-mapping process (again, workforce planning) and/or doing scheduled reviews – ideally.

2) Capture concrete performance objectives and consistently communicate these objectives to employees.  One of the (justified) continued complaints against HR is lack of concrete measurements and performance objectives despite all the evidence that demonstrates increased value creation when concrete performance and properly aligned objectives are defined and executed upon. The lack of clearly defined performance objectives are not confined to HR.  Line managers, senior leadership and HR must share in the responsibility and work in answering the question, “Just what constitutes non-satisfactory, satisfactory, and superior performance?”  Capturing specific job performance measurements within the performance appraisal itself may work; however, it is not necessary and may make your forms dated.  Instead, ensure that job incumbents know the definition of performance success (or failure) and when objectives are considered met in quantifiable language supplemented by specific work instances ((I personally recommend that time consistent job performance measurements be captured and supplemented by current (and flexible) positional performance objective criteria defined during through the workforce planning and/or workforce review processes) .  However captured, ensure that objective measures are communicated consistently to your workforce down to the individual level with formal-informal milestones suggested below.

3) Offset compensation performance measures with ethical performance measures.  The most common example of this is of course the banking and financial industries and how conflict often occurs when up-sales are not being made, loans are not being processed, or insurance products are not being sold.  However, to blame this on performance measures is not taking responsibility for adequately developing the very thing being complained about.  Performance measures tied to compensation such as merit or incentive pay, should have an ethical dimension to the performance factor, reminding employees that their ability to meet or exceed performance goals is not to be done at the expense of legal requirements and ethical considerations.  Though some advocate that incentive pay, merit pay, gain-sharing, etc.  should not be attached to performance standards, this misses the point that the linkage of the two are often necessary to adequately measure performance. The decision rests with senior leadership; the context through with such goals are interpreted are translated via the organization’s culture.  In other words: If your organization makes the decision to include monetary product-service levels within performance standards, your cultural tone will define at what lengths employees will take to achieve those standards, ethically and legally.

4) Remember that performance-appraisal reviews are a part of the process and not the process.  Here is where many managers lose sight of knowing the purpose of performance appraisals.  Performance appraisals are one of the tools at management disposal within the larger (and hopefully well defined) performance management process.  If you’re waiting until the six- and twelve month points to let employees know where they stand in meeting performance objectives then the performance appraisal nor the employee are your enemy – you are.  It is your role as an HR-Business leader to ensure that your professional peers and subordinates understand that High Performance Work Systems – in which HR processes play a critical role – includes a well-executed performance management process that is  consistently communicated, and that employee performance management is an on-going process. One of the most effective ways to accomplish this is to provide performance feedback that exceeds organizational requirements.  Thus if there is an annual/semi-annual formal performance review process, you should look and consider a quarterly feedback process that not only comments on performance, but shows how the job incumbent-employee can improve or sustain required performance.

5) Shared goal-setting – the often forgotten, proven benchmark. As professionals we read and may even directly observe-participate in effective goal setting against developed performance objectives; however, we often forget the effectiveness of accomplishing this in a systematic way – perhaps it is missing within the guidelines of managing the performance management process. However, when employees are empowered to help shape the goals that contribute directly to job requirements and performance objectives, the increased acceptance and legitimacy of the performance review process is increase.

There are supplementary measures and techniques individual to organizations that have proven effective.  Just remember what works for one organization, may not work for your organization.  The debate continues and will continue on the most effective among these techniques, which include separating salary discussion from performance reviews, providing peer-incumbent input “accomplishments” to formal performance reviews, and validating performance reviews through a two-party formal review process that often includes the direct supervisor and work-team-functional supervisor (as one example).  In  the end, it is my belief that all these may prove effective to a specific organization; however, are not effective for all organizations.  And that’s my key point: Your performance review-appraisal process must be consistent with your organizational culture.  If you have an open culture with free-flowing communication and a team-based atmosphere then peer validation and accomplishments may be warranted.  In contrast, matrix organizations and/or organizations where direct reports are separated geographically and/or direct observation is limited by the direct supervisor then the two-party review process may be warranted.  Is it fair to rank?  The answer to that question resides within your organization, your organizational culture, your performance criteria, and your process in which you promote and retain employees.

In conclusion, remember know this: The performance-appraisal review is not the problem (nor your enemy or scapegoat).  The problem is in the proper and relevant design, delivery, management, and execution within the larger context of your organizational performance management process that is the problem and that’ something and that’s something you can control.