Forum

HRD Canada forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
HRM CA | 25 Aug 2015, 08:00 AM Agree 0
Performance reviews are closer to being a thing of the past, as another corporate giant joins the growing list of companies determined to phase them out.
  • Doug Jordan | 25 Aug 2015, 09:52 AM Agree 0
    "companies have realized performance reviews are sapping managerial time and costing money, as managers are now responsible for more direct reports." Um, and this valuable management time would used where?
  • DSC44 | 25 Aug 2015, 10:39 AM Agree 0
    Buyer beware.

    Having talked to a number of the firms who have ventured this way the elephant in the room remains compensation. Only one has delinked compensation successfully. The rest have not and that is not 'talked' about in all the reports on what firms are doing.

    The result is a 'shadow ranking' system, as it is called by many of the employees. This has resulted in maintaining levels of distrust among employees when the shadow system is not transparent.

    When a company can show how they have eliminated the connection between comp and the annual review there will be a brake through. Right now it is mostly the same under another name.

    But it is something worth trying to achieve.
  • Sherry Knight | 25 Aug 2015, 11:21 AM Agree 0
    Very True - it is far too long to wait to give positive or negative feedback in a once or even twice a year performance evaluation. However, if performance evaluations were used to plan goals, that makes it a valuable tool.

    We have been telling our clients for a number of years to disengage from yearly performance reviews to provide immediate feedback so employees can keep on top of their game - and this puts more money in an employers pockets because people strive to be good at what they are doing.
  • paul | 26 Aug 2015, 08:13 AM Agree 0
    Have long implemented a 'system' which used both. Proper record keeping which annuals seem to encourage. - especially with bonus payouts - is needed for promotion and other applications. But regular on-going feedback builds better performance. Alas, the real reality seems to be, even where I work in GE, that most managers think about developing people last.
  • Cory Tymchuk | 26 Aug 2015, 08:20 AM Agree 0
    This has the look and feel of a soccer field full of 7 year olds where everyone gets a participation ribbon after an hour of play. But this is GE - so my observation has to be way off base. What is GE implementing in its place to more easily measure instantaneous performance no longer tied to annual goals?
  • Mike | 30 Aug 2015, 06:41 PM Agree 0
    Let's not get things mixed up here. While the firing of the bottom performers caught much of the headlines, it is generally accepted that GE re-acquired its "greatness" by aggressive use of performance reviews that were pertinent to performance. In fact, what it did was force managers to do their jobs they were supposed to do in the first place: manage your people by providing feedback that is useful and constructive. This new move is a logical next step because it reduces the formal time spent on these much-disliked reviews and replaces them with specific and timely feedback that can (should) be more useful and constructive. One concern of mine is that very few of my managers have been involved enough to provide such timely and useful feedback. Also, how will this be used (or documented) at raise time?
Post a reply