The Annual Employee Review

The annual employee review seems to me a remnant of a mechanistic management style a little out of step with emerging trends of employer-employee collaboration. Relying too much on a once-a-year review always overlooks the fact that our work is evaluated every day by students, staff members, team members, colleagues, outside partners and leadership. If there is something wrong, one would hope that it would not take a year to correct the problem. On the other hand, if something is going well, one would also hope that it would not take a year to say, "Nice job." The best evaluation technique has always been constant, consistent, honest feedback. I don't know why that's hard to do.

Yet, speaking from the employee side of the desk, the exercise is expected especially if no other long-term feedback is given during the year which does happen in some jobs. Once, I remember not receiving an evaluation because the boss was busy: I felt overlooked and under-appreciated. Silly, I know, but the annual ritual does force at least one discussion once a year about expectations and performance. Though, if this happens only once a year, the discussion is seldom honest or productive. It is necessary while at the same time dreaded. Like an annual physical: "Turn your head, cough, and tell me what your goals are for the next year."

Of course sometimes, the evaluation becomes unproductive when it is twisted into non-collaborative sub tones. Another year, another job, another example, I was annoyed when a boss told me at the end of a glowing evaluation that I did not communicate well. "What?" said I communicating rather well at the moment. He shrugged and said he had to put something down for improvement for next year. Since I was a strong communicator, he thought it would be easy to show progress for next year's form. I would show improvement and he would show coaching skills. He thought the idea was a win-win solution.  I thought I needed to update my resume.

This year in a post-Act 10 world in Wisconsin, a new Faculty Progression process is being tried out at my college. The process is thoughtful and innovative since it asks faculty and managers to establish a baseline of expectations and identify specific goals within a four-tier employment structure. Rather than force judgement into 50 check boxes ("Do you strongly agree, disagree, or think the boss has lost his/her mind?") this method seems to encourage more reflection than the usual turn of the head and cough. It takes longer, but so far, I am happy with this process: the goals are relevant, reasonable and achievable, though challenging, and the discussion I had with my associate dean was honest and productive.

Next year, we can evaluate how it is going.