How often should we conduct performance reviews of our employees?

Personally I have found that a regular schedule of the following to be most effective:

1) At the start of each quarter schedule a sit down with each of your direct reports and use that time to review the goals, wins, and potential areas for improvements that were highlighted in the last quarter as well as establish what the personal plan is for the next Quarter. Take the time at this point to reinforce that goals should be aligned with the companies core mission and established directions at the time and should follow a typical format such as S.M.A.R.T (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely).

2) Near the halfway point another meeting is typically a good idea to maintain focus on the planned objectives that were set at the beginning session. This gives the manager a way to help identify possible roadblocks that the employee may be having in their progression plan, and help to remove them to make the plan a success. Also, use this time to help get a sense of how the employee feels about the goals and objectives they picked, and if they feel they are still relevant, or perhaps provide feedback if you know that things within the company may be changing that may require that individual contributors change their focus. This avoids that feeling of 'man I did all that work and now it is wasted because the company didn't tell me they were changing over to...' syndrome.

3) Typically, at the half-way mark and then again towards the end of the year I sit and go over the previous 2 or 4 quarterly results and use that to help establish the plan and results report that ends up becoming the yearly evaluation of the team member that has a direct impact on their review score and their helps them establish their personal progression plan for the next year.

I find that by following this format, and staying consistent with it (do NOT fail to follow it or risk loosing credibility with your staff) shows that you are willing to work with them on their success, help them learn from their failures (we all fail at something at some point) and help them understand that as a manager, it is part of your job to help them achieve their goals and understand how their actions have a direct effect on the company and how they can help them advance both personally and professionally.

Hope this helps...

--------------------------------
S.M.A.R.T Goals
http://www.goal-setting-guide.com/goal-setting-tutorials/smart-goal-setting

David - It's not the review itself that's important but frequency of conversations a manager and employee have about performance. Twice a year is fine if the manager is meeting at least every other month with the employee to review progress. More frequents reviews are ideal but rarely get implemented. I'm ok with companies doing a once-a-year comprehensive review and then meet every few weeks to review problem areas. There's a lot of negative press these days about the annual review. But it's really the lack of conversation that's the problem.

Richard - I don't disagree the more sit-downs the better. But in many cases, I see organizations get so caught up in the development of what to review, that the actual review just never gets done. Worse, the conversation never gets started. My recommendation for a once-a-year review totally rests on reducing the stress induced by the review and creating more opportunities for conversation. By nature the manager/employee should want to do a more formal review than every 12 months if the conversations are taking place regularly. I just think that in many organizations, the annual review is such a painful process that asking managers and employee to do it twice a year from the start will kill any benefit. Like Raymond wrote, senior management has to recognize that performance view isn't a task on checklist to be completed but a process to be implemented. I don't disagree that more is better but none is worse.

This is industry specific. The best generalized response I can offer is that informal inspections and helpful feedback should be given to employees/subordinates on a daily or weekly basis, but official written performance reviews should be on a regular schedule and follow specific pre-stated protocols and guidelines. I preferred once every six months, but this may be altered depending on the nature of the work and the experience level of the employee.

@Maria,

While I tend to agree that 'yearly' (as in ONLY done yearly) reviews can be a scary thing, I believe that as long as you stay engaged with your employees on a regular plan then the yearly is just a sit down to look over what has already been documented, discuss any final 'stuff' that either side may think needs to be addressed, and then move on. I consider the 'yearly' as a type of business planing meeting. Look at all the data we have form the previous year, see if what we set out to do worked, what we wanted to change was changed, etc...

I guess it is all in how you use it.

If it was the ONLY time that manager and employee got together, then I agree, it's useless and can be terrifying for the employee so don't even bother.

Tend to agree with Ira on the lack of conversation issue but I think the more formal "sit down" review should not be at more than 6 month intervals. This gives sufficient opportunity to respond to SMART objectives (and set new ones) but this frequency also keeps positive experiences in mind.

Ira - I agree there. Quite often I think managers are 'expected' to be active participants in their staffs development cycle, and I view that as a good (great) thing myself, but then the upper management does not understand that fully enough to take no for an answer when meetings get rejected in favor of review sessions with employees. I have dealt with that myself on a few occasions and know that my direct manager is dealing with it right now with the team I am on. Trust me when I say that I understand being a manager is often and thankless job that requires hours of work outside the normal 'day', and personally I do not have a problem with that expectation at all. I do not see how the executive management of a company can expect a non-management level employee to expect to be have to stay late to have the opportunity to meet with their direct manager to get reviews and feedback sessions accomplished. Executive and other mid-level managers need to understand that the cycle of goal-setting, review, and feedback is critical, and MUST be held in high regard and focused on, and that starts with THEM providing time for their managers to accomplish that task.

Personally, if my manager does not have the time during the day to meet with me I view it as an upper-level issue rather than her problem. In fact it has gotten to the point in many cases at several companies where the managers have opened their calendars up to be viewed by their subordinates so they have a view of what they have been told by upper management that they HAVE to attend and what is getting int eh way of the personal 1:1 meetings and causing re-schedules of internal department level meetings. The problem here is then when WE talk to upper management we have to be careful how we word it so it does not appear that we are being ignored by our direct managers and that WE understand that it is THIER managers that are getting in OUR way of these useful sessions.

Raymond - thanks for the thought provoking response. Yes, time is so often ignored as a limited resource.

1- Performance happens every day like a cup of morning coffee. You should talk with your people daily or as often ans possible. Find out what's working and not working and how you can assist them regularly. Have lunch with a different employee daily. Keep informed. Keep them informed and how they are progressing as often as possible so you can make adjustments as you go.
2- Make sure you tell them when they do something good, in public is the best recognition
3- Keep constant communication following, do a Stay interview at least one a year
4- Bi-annual reviews are fine as long as you do 1 and 2 above regularly. Then there are no surprises. The review goes faster and everyone knows where they are at before they even meet if you've done this right.

I'm with you Fred, performance reviews should be a daily thing. When an employee does something right, a simple "John/Jill, you did a great job on that report. The data was current, the layout was easily read...."

If the employee did not do so well, the review should be in a private setting and it should be very clear. "John/Jill, I looked over the numbers you gave me and found that several items were in the wrong column. How can we make sure they go in the correct columns next time?" Or, something along those lines.

An annual written review is also extremely important, and I don't need to list the reasons why.

Regardless of what the review conveys, it should ALWAYS be conveyed with respect.

Raymond

I concur

I was lucky to only be on the receiving side of a few of those "yearly" terrifying reviews in my lifetime.

Establish initial expectations within the first couple of weeks of employment. Conduct first review at the 60 or 90 day point. Then another review 6 months after the first review. Annually after that, unless poor performance indicates a need for accelerating the review.

Adjust goals and expectations at each review, and provide ongoing performance feedback between reviews. The substance of the review should never be a surprise to the employee. If it is, chances are good that ongoing feedback was inadequate during the period being reviewed.

Steve Bowman, SPHR
steve.bowman@PartnersInHR.net

My goal is to never put a human being through a yearly review. IMO, they are awful, stressful, and discouraging.

I say to throw it out the window.

My goal is for companies to create a process that works better. For example:

1) weekly (or daily) goals reporting to their supervisor
2) 1 or 2 monthly meetings with a supervisor

Then there are no surprises at the yearly meeting that determines in the employee is getting a raise and how much, etc. Along with the $, that meeting should include a talk about the next years updated goals and plan for each position. If they haven't done well -- they already know! In fact, they may not be there for you to have the yearly meeting.

IF each position has a one page business plan(R) for their position within the company, then the goals reporting is easier to accomplish. As is communications with other staff and supervisors -- since they've all done a plan in the same format.