Annual Reviews

I have a like/hate relationship with performance reviews. Annual reviews often turn into sterile rituals. The dynamic of being judged does not suit most individuals. I endorse the idea of comprehensive and meaningful feedback with employees, and recognize it should be a constant effort rather than a once-yearly effort. On the other hand, a manager who was perennially didactic might become a bit tiresome. Moreover, it’s hard to give feedback on the fly during the “heat of battle,” so teachable moments are often lost. So maybe it is better to have performance reviews once a year, rather than not at all.

But the formats seem so standardized. Do all my accomplishments really fit into a matrix of specific, measurable, attainable, results oriented and time bound? Perhaps my greatest result was achieved by accident when I was playing around with an amorphous idea. Do all my deeds need to map into the 5, 6, or 7 avowed goals of the corporation for that year? All we really need is a blank piece of paper and an honest dialogue about what we hope to accomplish in the coming year.

Maybe performance reviews are a legacy of Frederick Winslow Turner, who measured all human output on a rigorously objective scale. That method may make sense if I am handling pig-iron, but does that work for lawyers? Perhaps it does; at least many law firms think so. This Taylor-esque approach sees man as a machine- fine tune here, polish there, find efficiencies, soon to achieve perfection.

But perhaps the goal of performance reviews shouldn’t be perfection and efficiency, but rather self-awareness which, at its best, allows people to tailor their efforts to achieve the most effective result. As Albert Camus wrote, “[A] man should know himself like the palm of his hand, know the exact number of his defects and qualities, know how far he can go, foretell his failures - be what he is. And, above all, accept these things.” Now that would be one heck of a performance review!