I was speaking with a co-worker yesterday about performance reviews — the pros and cons. Personally, I can see both sides of the argument.
For Performance Reviews
- If nothing else, at least you’re given feedback about your work once a year.
- They give you concrete areas for improvement, and goals for the following year.
Against Performance Reviews
- Many managers treat them “just as procedure” and don’t give them much credence.
- Just because you and your boss both fill it out doesn’t mean you’ll meet to discuss the results.
- Reviews should take place “as it happens” rather than going a full year before giving you feedback.
I’ve worked at both organizations that didn’t have official performance reviews at all and organizations that required performance reviews to be filed annually with HR. Like I said, I could go either way.
However, the last point I make under “against” above is an important one to me, particularly for young professionals: Reviews should take place “as it happens” rather than going a full year before giving you feedback. Although we’re all always still learning, those just entering their careers are almost constantly learning. Why not provide more ongoing, immediate feedback as opposed to an annual “for show” performance review?
What do you think of performance reviews, and why?