What are the pros and cons to having employees do self-evaluations before I write up their review?

Based on my personal experience in administering reviews, having your employees do self evaluations is extremely helpful. Most companies where I have worked have required a self-evaluation as part of the overall review process. The self evaluation helps an employee get into a mind-set of both introspective constructive criticism and self recognition. I also find it makes them more willing to receive feedback from you. Additionally, reviewing the self-evaluation before your write your own review of the employee can be helpful in terms of adding to or re-framing your own points.
In terms of cons, I'm not sure there are many. The biggest challenge of course is when the employee's self-appraisal in no way matches your own (or others') feedback. Even in this case though, having the employee document their own feedback and then comparing that point-by-point to the 360 feedback of others can be the most powerful way for helping the employee generate more self awareness.

Interesting discussion thread. Reading through it it looks like the same old management chestnut. If you are a competent manager this approach is a useful tool for getting some structured comment from your staff member. But on the other hand, if you have been doing your job properly, it is nothing other than a document of record, because you will always be on top of performance.

These types of assessment approaches are really more about helping the incompetent or inexperienced/newly appointed manager to make a better job of the review process. In my experience, gaps between performance and perception on either side of the table are indicative of poor communication and a failure of the manager to assume the Mentor/Coach element of their role.

I would suggest that if you are new to management, use what ever tools are available to help you do a better job. If you are a competent old hand, you are probably reviewing performance on a daily basis and coaching/mentoring your people to achieve higher levels of performance and don't really need the tools, other than for a formal annual review procedure, just to ensure a degree of formality and actual structured record.

As for the employee, a similar approach works here. Self assessment creates a document of record against which the manager's performance can be assessed in the event of a disagreement. It also guides the employee in thinking about their role and key performance indicators. It can help them identify areas around which they would like to gain some further clarity or insight.

The formal performance review process is fraught with tension on both sides. Good managers and employees don't seem to have a problem and the process runs smoothly. A deficiency in competence or capability on either side creates difficulty.

How many organisations operate their PMPs on a top down basis. Is the approach widely used? Is the appraisor in turn being appraised. To function properly, a PMP must also have a message of equality, it must not be seen as a system that tries to squeeze the last drop of performance out of an employee, while those above the process play more golf.

There are increasing trends visible in the workplace, that individuals are more reluctant to submit to a management approach that lacks a certain degree of equity and transparency. We saw the demise of the Autocratic style of leader with Generation X, Gen Y pushed the boat out a bit further. Don't underestimate the impact of Gen Z. Each generation has upped the ante for managers.

I answered this question on Linked-In and I was invited to answer it on this site. My answer doesn't seem to duplicate anything said son far.

I have found that it allows me to know if we (my employee and me) are on the same page. It is not so important that we get the same score but that we both score the employee high and low in the same places. If we do, it is a good indication that communication is working throughout the rating period and not just at the end. If not, it is a sign that I need to communicate more effectively r in a different manner.

To begin with, you need some set of objectives and performance measures established long in advance before you have a performance discussion. If you don't share common criteria, you are off on a bad foot.

Self appraisal works well for people who are "self aware." If the employee can be realistic in his/her assessment, you are on good ground. Some people have an inflated view of themselves and their contribution. Asking them to put this in writing reinforces it and sets the stage for a nasty debate. Expect your best people to be hardest on themselves. That's how they get to be the best people. Don't let them be too self critical.

When I taught high school (in the late Paleozoic), I let my best students enter their own grades on their report cards and I would then check them. It was a little bit of cheating on my part because nearly all of them had A's. I never had a problem with an undeserved grade going down. I did not give that option to everyone. What you want is for people to develop the capacity to accurately judge their own performance without hearing it from others. All development is, in the end, self-development. If you have a really good work group, they can do their appraisals and save you a lot of work.

I would suggest you not use rating scales when asking for self evaluations, but more a general narrative of what the person thinks. It is non productive to get into an argument over whether he is a 6 or 7 or an 8 or 9. Talk things out before you settle on a number. Better yet, avoid the numbers if you can. Most people can only effectively describe three levels of performance -- failing, adequate, very successful. Maybe you can tease a level out between adequate and successful, but it takes work. Try writing a unique description of behavior for each scale point to test this. That creates a BARS - behaviorally anchored rating scale.

Don Barkman, President
The Business Center
www.bizcenter.com
Employee and Organization Development
Consulting and Training

Dear Lesley,

I agree with Michael and would say that I fall into the camp for self-evaluation before reviews for the following reasons (though I would try to highlight some of the issues I have seen with adopting this approach):

It gives your staff an opportunity to reflect on their performance during the period and if applicable, highlight any contributions they have made which their manager (you in this case) may not remember or openly see.

It gives them and you a better starting point to openly discuss their performance and makes it easier for you to highlight development areas.

It allows you to help staff see where they are not being objective and helps them build the ability to appraise others as well.

Saves you time (this can be argued) because the originating review starts from them and is less likely to be received negatively than if it originally started with your assessment.

Finally, I believe it allows staff to take responsibility for their development as it becomes easier to see non-obvious performance management issues where staff are way off the mark in terms of the correlation between their feedback and that of others.

Finally, it shows your staff that you respect them.

Possible shortcomings include:

Staff may not be as objective as they should be in their own self appraisal (though I would add that if you invest time before hand in helping them to reflect on their activities and you give informal feedback regularly this can be overcome)

It may lead to resentment if the first issue exists and you have to disagree with most of their self assessment.

Sometimes, staff may feel vulnerable especially where the self appraisal is part of a 360 degree system because it means their self assessment is up for comparison with the outcomes of the other aspects of the process.

From experience, I have seen that less confident staff tend to hesitate and hold back where they have to complete self appraisals as part of a 360 degree system so it can take some of your time chasing such staff to do their part.

I hope this helps.

Michael Singer, I don't disagree with your point. I also don't think the approaches are mutually exclusive. Regularly scheduled reviews, including self reviews, are a good-step back point to look at the entirety of performance across a longer period. In no way should a review system of any type be an execuse for not addressing and dealing with point performance issues in real-time. That's just poor management IMHO.

PRO: Having employees perform evaluations on themselves shows you how they view their performance. An employee who believes they are doing a great job when they are not may not be as receptive to criticism. Knowing this type of information can be very handy as a manager. I think it will also help you know which approach to take with them when personally giving them their review. Done over a period of time, these self evaluations can give you insight into whether or not the employee believes he/she is improving. It provides you with a better starting point because you can highlight good points they wrote and back them with your perspective. Self reflection on the employees behalf makes them more receptive to your comments and makes them examine their role in the company more closely.

CON: If you go through an employees evaluation of himself/herself prior to doing your own review you may be swayed by what they say. Or you may find yourself being lazy when it comes to reviewing and just regurgitating what they have said.

Leslie, really good point on the CON.

I have found that it is important for employees to play a role in the entire performance management cycle - setting goals, coaching, appraisal and development discussions.
As far as the appraisal portion of the cycle, I asked the staff to review their goal statements and comment on how they accomplished these. They should also note their strengths and development needs.
This is important for a couple of reasons:
1. Makes sure you are both on the same page
2. If you have a large staff, it isn't possible to be aware of everything your team is doing
3. It empowers the employee to be an active participant in the appraisal discussion

We gave appraisal training to managers on how to conduct appraisals and we also gave training to the employee's on how to participate in the sessions. It helped alleviate some of the stress that always appeared during the weeks that appraisals were scheduled since everyone knew their role in the process. It worked out very well.

I'd also like to add that during quarterly coaching sessions, the employees also played an active role. Again, they provided input on their progress on achieving their goals. It was all documented making the performance appraisal that much easier.

A lot of great answers! One thing I would like to add is in response to Don's comment about self-rating. I agree and it is actually very important that employees not be able to give themselves a rating. When I implemented one online Performance Management System I set it up where the employee went first and did a self-review, however, they were only allowed to enter comments. They did not have the ability to even enter a rating. As mentioned before self-reviews give the employee a sense of empowerment which leads to stronger buy-in. To strengthen this further I set the system up so that just like during the Manager Review the employee can not see it until it is moved to the Discussion phase, during the Self-Review stage the Manager was unable to see the employee comments. This conveys the feeling to employees that they are equal partners in the review process. One caveat if you are going to do this. With online systems you can set the review form to automatically roll-over to the next step or let it stay in the current step until moved. For the self-review the form would automatically roll-over regardless of if the employee entered anything. This prevents an employee from holding up the process or the Manager using it as an excuse as to why they were late. Remember to send multiple reminders to the employees to not miss their chance to comment on their performance. Manager reviews would only roll over if the form was "validated" which means the form was completely filled out and ratings were given in all areas. If not it would stay in Manager Review until they moved it them self. This allows you to track which Managers are on time and which are not.