Proposal for Performance Review Training

Proposal for Performance Review Training

Many companies today use performance review programs that are ineffective. There are several reasons for the ineffectiveness. Lack of training, a constantly changing business economy, and performance measurements that are subjective are just a few. In recent years companies have searched for ways to improve productivity without creating excessive expense that may not bring a return. I would submit that a cost effective way to increasing productivity is through a performance review program that truly measures the employees’ performance and provides constructive feedback that can help improve performance.

For years, performance reviews have, in many cases, been viewed as negative events by both the employee and the supervisor. If you were to ask 12 of your friends what they thought about performance reviews, you undoubtedly would be met with mixed experiences, but I would bet that most responses will be negative. If your friends are not hostile, or scornful, then they will be clearly unimpressed (Anna Johnson).

The challenge that a company faces is how to implement a program that is truly beneficial to the company as well as the employees. Supervisor and managers are employees too. Therefore, a well orchestrated and effective performance review program must start with the management. Like any skill, evaluating someone’s performance and using that information can be enhanced with training (Muchinsky 1987).

Through the analysis of several works and white papers produced by well known psychologists and successful business persons, I have found common problems or shortcomings with performance review programs. I propose that we immediately begin a training program that focuses on these common observations to better administer our review program. With these issues, I have provided recommendations to support the training.

Observation: A major contributing factor to a poor performance review program is the lack of clearly defined organizational philosophies, objectives, and standards for the program. A supervisor who does not understand why the program is used or what the company expects to gain from its implementation, most likely will not give the program the support it requires.

Recommendation: The Company should develop a manual that clearly defines its philosophies, objectives, and standards for the program. This can serve as a text during training and later as a handy reference (Muchinsky 1987). All employees should be made aware that their performance will be evaluated. They should know the goals and objectives of the program as well as how they can benefit from it.

Observation: Performance goals for the employee are not clearly defined and are often subjective and immeasurable. The employee must understand what is expected of them.

Recommendation: The supervisor and employee should develop and agree upon goals together. The goals must be objective and measurable. This is generally completed at the beginning of a new review period and documented in the employee’s human resource folder.

Observation: Supervisor not proving feedback to employees until the performance review. In many cases, supervisors notice good and bad performance during the review period but wait until the performance review to provide feedback. This most always becomes negative so the employee is either shocked or at best wondering why the supervisor didn’t address the situation sooner.

Recommendation: Supervisor should make it a habit to tell their employees if they’ve done a good or poor job, and if the job is poor, explain how they can do things better in the future (Anna Johnson). Doing so will increase productivity and eliminate surprises during the performance review. These things should be documented, good or bad, and maintained in the employee’s human resource folder.

Observation: Using recent performance to evaluate the entire review period. It’s all too human to remember, and give greater weight, to recent events rather than earlier events. However, this can lead to inaccurate and unfair assessment when it comes to reviewing an employee’s performance (Anna Johnson).

Recommendation: As with the previous recommendation, supervisors should take notes and document performance variance, good and bad, throughout the review period. This will enable the supervisor to review the employee’s performance based