Performance Evaluation: Flight, Fight or Flex?

Outside of the ‘make it or break it’ second interview, probably the most tense and anxiety ridden time in an employee’s professional life is the dreaded annual performance evaluation. A lot rides on the outcome of these formal encounters with one’s boss. In many cases, an employee’s future with the company, their annual merit increase and/or their potential rating are ‘in play’. How does one mentally prepare for this important event? What, if any strategy, will be effective in convincing the boss that your efforts were value added and impactful? How does one disagree with the boss’s evaluation of their performance without appearing defensive and self-serving?  How do you accept constructive and career building feedback that, when articulated by the boss, stings the psyche? All good questions, for sure. Let’s take a run at trying to explicate the dreaded performance evaluation session.

First, any good performance evaluation process is not an annual event. It is continual, timely and constructive feedback given when needed. Any boss who is into ‘catching you doing something wrong’ and mentally filing it away to be used in the so-called annual evaluation is operating ‘above his/her pay grade’. Good supervisors are more concerned about developing the employee’s skill set so that strategic company goals are met. Hence, a good supervisor will insure that the employee is given timely, clear and concise feedback when needed. Assuming the employee has the knowledge, skill, and ability to perform the tasks and responsibility of the position, corrective actions based on feedback should not be a problem. However, if the employee is “over their head” in the job, the boss must be courageous and confident enough to work with HR to find, if possible, a better placement within the organization—if such is available. Putting an employee who lacks the knowledge, skills and ability to do the job on a Performance Improvement Plan is tantamount to a ‘stay of execution’. 90 days or 900 days will not improve the performance of an employee lacking the ability to do the job.

 Now, back to answering the questions posed above. Specifically, how does one mentally prepare for the encounter? The most important step in mental preparation is to put the event in perspective. In other words, think about the session as developmental opportunity and not as a definitive event. Viewing the session as developmental allows you to go into the conversation expecting to receive constructive feedback. Any evaluation session that focuses only on your strengths shortchanges you and undermines your ability to become better in the current or future jobs. Even before the formal session and without equivocation tell the boss that you see yourself as a top performer and are open to being rigorously managed as such--every day.  What this implies is that you are willing to take blunt and often times critical feedback so necessary to getting better in your current position and reaching your career goals. If you approach the evaluation with fear and trepidation, a mental block caused by emotional tension arises-creating an inability to think of something you normally can and have done. In a word, you become defensive. Neither a defensive nor an offensive posture is helpful in becoming mentally prepared for the evaluation.

Employing the ‘developmental approach’ allows you to frame a strategy based on honesty, integrity and truth. You are able to honestly assess the quality of your performance against goals; possess the integrity to admit the “missed opportunities”; and, be truthful about reasons you did or didn’t reach your stated goals. So, the going in strategy is based on disarming the boss—who, most likely, is prepared to argue with you about accepting your shortcomings. Once the session begins, listen very carefully and take notes; try to isolate the performance deficiency the boss is alluding to or talking, specifically, about; ask questions only for clarification and/or deeper understanding—not as challenges to his/her assessment. Finally, after listening intently, without interrupting, rephrase what you heard; ask if you accurately decoded what he/she was saying. If there is agreement that you heard what was intended, respond only to those points that are unclear to you and/or are based on incomplete information. If the problem is incomplete information on the boss’s part, you, more than likely, are the blame for failure to post him/her in a timely fashion. Accept the responsibility for failure to post and request that you be allowed to provide him/her with the missing information. Finally, if it appears as though the boss is inflexible and wrong, agree to disagree—and ask how this situation can be remedied. Throughout this session, you must stay on strategy—with poise, presence and clear projection of your objectives. Lest you think that I believe the boss is omnipotent, let me hasten to add that there are some rater errors that you should be aware of that can affect your performance rating. 

These rater errors, according to Robert L. Mathis and John H. Jackson, in the seminal textbook, Human Resources Management, Twelfth Edition   include Varying Standards, “where bosses apply different standards and expectations for employees performing similar jobs”; Recency and Primacy Effects or ‘what have you done for me lately?’ Rater Bias, occurs “when a rater’s values or prejudices distort the rating. Such bias may be unconscious or quite unintentional”—but they still negatively impact; Halo and Horns Effect, “when a rater scores an employee high [Halo Effect] on all job criteria because of performance in one area…or [Horns Effect] which occurs when a low rating on one characteristic leads to an overall low rating”; Contrast Error, “which is the tendency to rate people relative to others rather than against performance standards. For example, if everyone else performs at a mediocre level, than a person performing somewhat better may be rated as “excellent because of the contrast effect”; and, finally- to me, the most arbitrary one and pernicious when combined with Rater Bias-the Similar-to-Me/Different-from-Me Errors, where “raters are influenced by whether people show characteristics that are the same as or different from their own”. Now, perhaps, you may have benefited from or been victimized by one or more of these rater errors. Just remember, rater bias is a two edged sword—cutting both ways. And, it always depends on “whose ox is being gored”! The Truth shall set you free!