Performance evaluation is a standard procedure in a relationship between an employer and their employees. Although performance appraisal happens at least once a year and is a regular procedure in the life of a company, it typically causes a lot of anxiety, both from employer’s and employee’s side. Empirical research shows, however, that managers do find formal evaluation an effective aspect of improving work performance (Performance Reviews, 2016). From this point of view, it is important to acquire a better understanding of the possible ways of making this process less unpleasant for both parties involved. Whilst in the past research focused mainly on the ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ in the performance evaluation process, recent research has studied the reasons behind managers’ dissatisfaction and anxiety in the process of appraisal.
One of the main reasons why managers dislike performance reviews is the formality and bureaucracy that is linked to this process. The most common performance evaluation consists of forms, a prescribed process, and a formal discussion. These procedures usually require an extra amount of work from the part of a manager. Companies with the system of direct reports have their managers spending hours filling in appraisal forms. In addition to this, performance appraisal is linked to unpleasant psychological processes. Namely, whilst employees in general enjoy receiving feedback, this relates mostly to positive feedback (Firth, 1980). Similarly, managers do not like inflicting negative emotions among employees, especially in cases with it might result in an automatic protective reaction. Managers are often accused of being biased and unfair in the process of evaluation, which is also one of the reasons why managers do not like going through this process. It is important to note, however, that these complaints are often quite reasonable. Mangers typically have a number of biases that influence their feedback. Namely, while it is relatively easy to remain just when working with objective criteria of performance such as the amount of employee’s work that was completed on time, more subjective criteria such as employee’s devotion is more difficult to measure without biases (Bol, 2011). Managers also often pay more attention to an employee’s recent performance rather than the performance that they demonstrated throughout the year, which is another example of bias. Finally, research shows that performance evaluation typically is closely intertwined with considerable time investments (Conant, 1973). From this point of view, an inadequate preparation for a review might result in a manager not having enough time to evaluable each employee’s performance.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Why Do Some Managers Hate the Performance Evaluation?".
As seen from above, a profile of a typical manager who struggles with evaluation process includes characteristics such as the fear of giving a negative feedback, lack of everyday interaction with employees, inadequate preparation to review, and inability to set deliverables. In fact, when a manager is unapproachable, he or she will typically have little contact with employees, which makes the process of evaluation more difficult and more unexpected for the employees. In contrast, an effective manager is aware of his or her biases that might influence the process of evaluation and prepares adequately to performance evaluation. In order to prepare for the event, a manager should eliminate surprises by providing feedback to the employees on a regular basis. Finally, it might be helpful to develop single-page performance review in order to simplify the process of evaluation and make it less bureaucratic. Although HR Department often develops a long evaluation form that aims to assess every aspect of employee performance, studies show that shorter evaluations are in fact more effective (Bol, 2011).
As seen from above, the performance evaluation form corresponds with the company’s objectives. More specifically, it focuses on the aspects of employee performance such as an establishment of a good relationship with clients and an effective process of communication. In addition to this, by emphasizing employees’ progress and goals for further improvement, the form reflects the company’s objective of constant change and growth. Finally, the form aims to measure employee’s integrity, which relates to the company’s objective to create an integrated and comfortable work environment.
In conclusion, managers dislike performance reviews because of its formality and bureaucracy, negative psychological processes that are linked to it, extra time investments, and possible accusations of being biased. Managers do not like inflicting negative emotions among employees, especially in cases with it might result in an automatic protective reaction. In addition to this, they are often accused of being biased and unfair in the process of evaluation, which is also one of the reasons why managers do not like going through this process. A profile of a typical manager who struggles with evaluation process includes characteristics such as the fear of giving a negative feedback, lack of everyday interaction with employees, inadequate preparation to review, and inability to set deliverables. An effective manager is aware of his or her biases that might influence the process of evaluation and prepares adequately to performance evaluation. In order to prepare for the event, a manager should eliminate surprises by providing feedback to the employees on a regular basis. Finally, it might be helpful to develop single-page performance review in order to simplify the process of evaluation and make it less bureaucratic.
- Bol, J. C. (2011). The Determinants and Performance Effects of Managers’ Performance Evaluation Biases. Accounting Review, 86(5), 1549-1575.
- Conant, J. C. (1973). THE PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL: A critique and an alternative. Business Horizons, 16(3), 73.
- Firth, M. (1980). The Impact of Some Misdesign Variables on Employee Evaluations. MIS Quarterly, 4(1), 45-54.
- Performance Reviews: Love ’em or Hate ’em. (2016). TD: Talent Development, 70(2), 19.
