Don't be scared of work reviews

Annual or semi-annual formal performance reviews at work are common, but new research reinforces the importance of continuous feedback on employee performance, reports futurity.org. In addition, the paper shows how the social environment can either encourage or inhibit that feedback. “The key really is accuracy in the ratings managers give their employees,” says Jisoo Ock, lead author and doctoral candidate in psychology at Rice University.

A question of motivation: The researchers report that supervisors are concerned that if they give accurate approval ratings that are low, they could demotivate employees. For this reason, organisations often have ratings that cluster at the high end of the rating scale. “Organisations by nature are large social environments and we cannot forget that context when making use of performance-rating data,” Ock says. “We think that the critical factors of interpersonal relationships and interpersonal politics in an organisational environment may have a profound influence on a company’s review process. But these factors are typically under-researched.”

Nice coworkers and distant managers: For co-workers who are asked to rate each other’s performance, the social context of appraisals can often make it generally difficult and discomforting to provide negative ratings or negative feedback. The researchers note that it is sensible for peers not to provide accurate negative feedback, because they ultimately have to work together on a day-to-day basis. “Likewise, supervisors and coworkers may have a difficult time transitioning from being inspirers, motivators, or even friends to being judicial evaluators of employees,” Ock says. “Regardless of the nature of the organisation, it is no surprise that raters will often tread carefully in ways that avoid negatively affecting their long-term relationships with those people whose performance they have to rate,” Ock says.

A question of interaction: Another problem arises when managers have infrequent interactions with employees, or interactions where employees know that they have to be on their best behaviour. Under these circumstances, it becomes difficult to pinpoint areas of improvement or identifying potential growth, all of which does little good for the employee, supervisor, or the company. “The nature and amount of interaction between managers and employees affects the performance dimensions on which raters have useful and accurate information,” Ock says. “These interactions-like any interpersonal interaction-likely affect how naturally employees performs in front of the rater, whether performance is alone or on a team.”

Workplace culture: The authors point out that research on informal performance management systems is quite limited, but their paper suggests why it theoretically has strong potential. “Certainly no organisation is going to be without politics, but the more that an organisation has a non-threatening social environment or culture that facilitates ongoing communication and feedback among employees, the more productive and beneficial the performance appraisal process will be,” Ock says. “Continuous feedback that occurs on a day-to-day basis in such an environment is much more likely to create real-time alterations in employees’ job performance behaviors than are infrequent or annual formal feedback sessions. Compared with formal feedback, informal feedback occurs naturally and is perhaps unexpected, which is why there needs to be an environment in which organisational members feel comfortable about providing and receiving frequent informal feedback,” he adds.