What if you could replace performance evaluations with four simple questions? –...

What if you could replace performance evaluations with four simple questions? – The Washington Post

2
SHARE

When I read this article, my first thought was that it was a brilliant solution to an age-old business problem. Then I started reading the comments…

Read the article and the comments and add your voice to the conversation here.
Is this a positive, transformative concept, or is it something darker?

What if you could replace performance evaluations with four simple questions?
Deloitte has come up with them (and two only need a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer).

Everyone loves to hate performance evaluations, and with good reason: Research has shown them to be ineffective, unreliable and unsatisfactory for seemingly everyone involved … A once-a-year, backwards-looking conversation with the boss hardly fits our forward-looking, instantly updated world. Yet despite all that frustration, many companies do little to change them, thinking there are few alternatives.

That hasn’t been the case at Deloitte. The new issue of the Harvard Business Review, released Tuesday, unveils a detailed look at the professional services firm’s total redesign of its performance management program. It’s an overhaul the company first started rolling out nine months ago.

via What if you could replace performance evaluations with four simple questions? – The Washington Post.

2 COMMENTS

  1. I agree that performance evaluations are, typically, complicated, time consuming, and probably unfair to boot. But I fear that Deloitte’s four simple questions have swung the pendulum too far the other way. I can’t see how someone’s performance could be adequately ascertained on the basis of binary answers to those questions. The last question in particular bothers me, as performance in current role and readiness for future role are different animals.

    • Great points as always, Ryan. I’m also inclined to think that it is overly simplistic, but like 70:20:10, I don’t see this as an “absolute” solution, but I do see it as a catalyst for discussion on the need for simplicity in how one manages talent.

      The fourth question does have a few facets to it. For example, in progressive or hierarchical settings, that question does have validity (e.g military environments, or other structured career path) or in ones where management is actively training their replacements and engaged in strong succession planning. In other environments, it may be better positioned as whether or not someone is ready to make a lateral move within the org if they have reached the limits of their current role but no suitable upward progression exists.

LEAVE A REPLY