An article in a recent Wall Street Journal once again extols the virtues of getting rid of performance reviews. It’s written, of course, by a career academic and author who fancies himself a consultant as well.
Therein lies the problem. I have no problem with academics, per se. I just want them to remain in academia. It’s when they venture out into the real world that their distorted perceptions and laboratory theories fall apart.
Someone need to lock those guys up, before they do real damage to some unsuspecting company.
In summary, this gown-wearing, tasseled professor believes that performance reviews have no impact on measurement, pay, development or, in fact, performance.
And perhaps, given his limited, myopic experience, that’s been true. And I’m certainly not one to claim that all performance reviews are of great value. Some aren’t. Sometimes managers, untrained and unprepared, fail at the effort. Sometimes, we don’t communicate regularly enough to prepare them for success.
But to paint all performance management with the same “ineffective” brush is, well, just plain stupid. Well-trained managers, managing performance in a well-thought process, can create a higher-performing organization than would ever occur if we were all left to our own devices.
You would, of course, have to spend some time in the real world to know that. The real reason for this article in the WSJ? The proposed alternative:
“Performance Previews”
That’s right, an entry piece to introduce–in all likelihood–this pointy-haired ivory-tower resident’s new book. Didn’t see that coming.
More consultant-speak and fads. Yes, that’s what we need…
Not.
But that’s just me.
