SPG Blog

I’ve participated in my share of performance reviews, both as employee and supervisor, but I’m certainly no expert on the subject. So I turn to one of Sage Portfolio Group’s in-house experts, Ileana Vassiliou, for her “review of reviews”.

I ask Vassiliou what style of review has largely been discarded. The simplest kind of review, she explains, evaluates an employee’s performance according to descriptors like punctuality, quality of output, and workplace relationships. If the descriptors are poorly defined or lack measurable standards, the review will be inadequate because feedback can’t be linked to achievement of expectations, and can’t be used for goal setting. “Let’s say an employee was told in her review that she had a problem with being late. If no one in the company has defined what ‘being punctual’ means or established a way of measuring punctuality, there’s a problem with the review process,” Vassiliou explains. A better way to conduct such a review would be to establish specific measures. “For someone employed as a writer,” Vassiliou says, “quality could be measured according to number of edits required per manuscript. High quality might be considered an average of 10 edits, while moderate quality might be a 15 edit average.”

I’m curious about what is ‘old school’ in performance reviews, but worth preserving. “The easiest part of the performance review is setting objectives and outcomes for people and measuring accomplishments against the expectations,” Vassiliou says. “That worked before and still works now.”

So what does Vassiliou see as “hot” in performance reviews right now? “The main thing that’s new is separating the ‘review’ from the ‘development conversation’,” she explains. “Current best practice is to have these at different times of the year, because when they’re put together, the development piece gets shortchanged.” The review is about the past: assessing accomplishments, determining areas where expectations were not met, and identifying the supports needed to meet expectations in the future. The review is also where compensation is discussed. “The development conversation,” Vassiliou continues, “is future oriented and is not tied to money. It’s more like coaching the employee. It might sound something like this: What are your strengths? How can you deploy them better in the present and in the future? What experiences do you need to grow in your current job? What’s your next career goal? Is it a fit for your talents? How can we get you there?”

Vassiliou provides an example of an exceptional Fortune 100 company that has separated the review and development conversation. The traditional performance review component happens annually and evaluates the employee’s achievement of goals that are aligned with the organization’s strategic plan. “This way,” Vassiliou says, “employees know how they’re making a difference.” The mid-year review is a coaching or career development conversation, which helps determine where the employee will move next. “This conversation is crucial, because this particular company moves people into a different role every 18 months. The move is determined by looking for synergy between individual and organizational development needs.”

Having a development conversation with an employee without the added stress of evaluation and compensation makes a lot of sense. It’s a prime example of cutting-edge meets common-sense, and makes me wonder why we ever did it any other way.