The Flaws in Employee Reviews: A Call for a More Genuine and Effective System

Employee reviews have been a cornerstone of workplace management, but the traditional approach is famously flawed. In my experience, I’ve rarely given a bad review because I make it a point to work with employees throughout the year, adjusting expectations and responsibilities, addressing issues as they arise rather than saving them for review time. This approach ensures that there are no surprises during employee reviews, but it also raises a critical question: why are managers in charge of reviewing their employees at all?

The Problem with Manager-Led Employee Reviews

The current system of manager-led employee reviews is inherently biased, as it is often based on a single perspective, the manager's. This is especially dangerous in situations where:

• • Managers are stretched thin and don’t work closely with the employees they are tasked with reviewing.
• • A manager’s perception of an employee’s performance is influenced by personal feelings.
• • Budget constraints affect the manager's evaluation, when employee bonuses are review based.
• • Managers are under stress from their own supervisors, and have lost interest in serving their team.
• • There are ulterior motives, such as creating a paper trail to justify planned future termination.

This system places too much power in the hands of a single individual and can lead to permanently documented assessments that do not accurately reflect the employee’s true performance, and can affect things like promotions, lateral movement betwen teams, potential new responsibilities, special interest projects, and job skill development.

A Alternative Approach: Objective Metrics and Peer Feedback

Instead of relying on potentially biased managerial reviews, employee evaluations should be based on objective, incorruptible metrics. These could include pollable performance indicators such as:

• • Task completion rates.
• • Consumer feedback.
• • Employee’s attitude and teamwork.
• • Invitations to provide cross-team insights.

An employee could start the year with a neutral or "average" review, which could be adjusted if management has worked with the employee to address those performance issues like, negative feedback from customers or peers, or if praise is spontaneously given during company meetings. If there are fewer escalations during an employee's shift, that might indicate good domain knowledge. It's also important to set realistic expectations; each employee has different strengths and weaknesses. Evaluations should be tailored to each individual, assessing whether they performed up to their agreed-upon standards and commitments. It could even fall on management as part of their own review to address why they are giving responsibilities to someone who can’t deliver on those responsibilities, why they havent developed someone to succedd, do they have the skills to develop someone?

Who Should Review Whom?

Rather than managers reviewing their subordinates, perhaps it’s time to flip the script. Employees should have the opportunity to review their managers. This could include questions like,

• • "How did I do this year in supporting you?"
• • "How did I do resolving problems you’ve faced?"
• • "Are there any productivity tools you could benefit from?"
• • "Do you feel that your career is on the right track?"
• • "Do you have any recommendations on how the team could improve?"

Such a system would shift the focus from the power dynamics of management to a more collaborative approach, where leaders are held accountable for their support and guidance.

Eliminating Managerial Bias

Additionally, the management group should not review each other. This practice only serves to perpetuate the concentration of power at the top, creating a stagnant and potentially corrupt environment. Instead, cross-functional feedback and independent assessments could provide a more balanced view of performance across the organization.

• • Did management answer the call when they were needed?
• • Did they provide the necessary tools and resources to complete projects?
• • Did they effectively communicate expectations and provide clear direction?
• • Were they approachable and supportive when team members faced challenges?

This approach could also lead to greater transparency in management's responsibilities and reduce the division between management and empoloyee levels, inviting a stronger sense of unity within the company.

If we all know the traditional employee review process is broken, then why are we still participating? It’s time to rethink how we evaluate and reward our teams. By working closely with employees throughout the year, addressing issues as they arise, and basing reviews on objective facts, we can create a more geniune, transparent, and beneficial system for everyone.