Queue the resignation letters — it’s performance review time!

As the leaves begin to turn and our latte’s get a punch of pumpkin syrup, one less savory thing comes to mind for me: performance reviews. Right about now you’re settling in for the brutal storm that is delivering performance reviews. That time when you give employees the feedback that you both know is completely skewed by recency bias and administrative exhaustion.

Without fail, you’ll have at least one employee who is completely shocked by negative feedback, one employee who is getting away with murder, and one employee who is way too hard on themselves. Not to mention, performance reviews that don’t result in expected raises or promotions may lead to unproductive employees or even resignation letters.

Why does everyone continue to put themselves through this?

Forward thinking companies have reconsidered the effectiveness of the annual (or semi-annual or quarterly, etc.) performance review and have begun using new approaches to create a more regular discourse between managers and employees, but we still haven’t found an effective, complete replacement for the review process.

Before we’re able to create a less burdensome process to evaluate employee performance, it’s important to first pause and take a deeper look at the impact of the traditional approach.

Individual Contributors: Reviews are directly tied to promotions and compensation adjustments so it’s only natural that most employees inadvertently and subconsciously report more of their successes than their failures. The flip side is true as well, the best employees sometimes look at their work through a negative lens, focusing only on the times they stumbled.

Managers: Managing each employee’s self and peer reviews while also developing their own assessment of each of their direct reports — the paperwork alone is overwhelming! When the average manager has seven direct reports, the process becomes time consuming and mundane. At times, it’s more of a hassle than it is a productive exercise. At many companies, managers are also required to rank employees and defend those rankings in front of a committee in a high-pressure meeting. If a manager lacks the time, resources or political ties to advocate for employees, it means their employees won’t be rewarded or recognized for their work.

HR Professionals: Anyone who’s ever administered an annual review knows the painfully grueling process of collecting employee feedback: tireless email reminders to employees, software training meetings, data collection, compensation management and calibration committees, coaching leaders and managers on result presentation, and dealing with the collateral damage of surprised and upset employees. The data proves how miserable the process really is — CEB research has found that more than 9 in 10 managers are dissatisfied with how their companies conduct annual performance reviews, and almost 9 in 10 HR leaders say the process doesn’t yield accurate information.

Leadership: In the end, the time and effort used to manage and execute an annual review process has yet to successfully improve employee engagement or happiness. Without data to support the benefit of reviews, leadership continues to question the results.

Modern, employee-centric companies are finally taking a long, hard look at the performance review process to identify alternative ways to better understand their employees’ growth and performance. While we’re all still working toward a perfect solution, one thing is certain: the future of performance management will require a more regular discourse between managers and employees and more regular data collection to create an accurate, actionable path for growth and engagement. At Plause, we are obsessed with the future of work and are committed to making work, work better!