Performance Reviews most pressing HR issue
March 29, 2006
You may have noticed a poll in the left-hand column over the past couple of weeks. Though clearly not scientific in any way, the poll has provided some insight into what’s on the minds of our readers.
We asked, “What is your most pressing HR issue?”
We had 50 people respond to the poll, and the results are interesting. Despite all the talk about succession and compensation, the core issue (28%) for our respondents was Performance Reviews followed followed closely by Goal Alignment (24%).
To me, it indicates that Performance Management and Goal Alignment are still the biggest pain points for HR practitioners. They represent the heart of talent management initiatives, and Succession and Comp. are just further down in the hierarchy of HR needs.
I’d be curious to hear what you guys have to say about the results. Do you think they’re generally representative, or are they skewed for some reason?
Related posts
Comments
5 Responses to “Performance Reviews most pressing HR issue”
Got something to say?
The interesting part about this survey is that, a lot of organizations are caught up with the increase activitiy on talent management, succession planning and career development. But, if a proper issues identification were conducted, your survey would not be too far off.
There is no surprise here for the results. With raises at a all time low, more and more importance is placed on the performance review as the end all be all. The problem is that compensation should be an after thought of the review, not the focus area. Reviews should primarily focus on the future. WE already know what we did successfully and not successfully. Recency is the killer, “what have you done for me lately” (literally in the last 90 days). Reviews also should be driven by the employee not the manager. I would like to know what others are thinking about this. Thanks, nat
My feelings are similar to Nat’s–the employee should drive the review, and the review should be a separate conversation from compensation. I see the review as an opportunity for managers to get to know their employees and their team’s goals–with the ultimate goals of supporting retention, increasing morale through such interactions, and identifying opportunities for better goal alignment. The challenge, however, is communicating this to busy managers who may feel less enthusiastic about managing their people than charging ahead to meet their team’s goals.
The survey results make interesting reading. I believe that performance reviews are a great source of motivation if done well.
The yearly, sometime two times a year, performance evaluation process definitely has issues. We ask a lot from this yearly process - evaulate past performance, employee development, goaling setting as well as compensation.
I would prefer the yearly performance evaluation process be primarily a compensation tool. Why? Because in my experience as a HR professional, there is limited employee feedback going on. If the manager has to perform numerous reviews, how much time do you think he/she can provide for each employee? It’s considered a ‘big’ pain for most managers. Given the employee is important in the productivity of the business, why would feedback be considered a problem.
My thought is monthly meetings….the manager can align goals to current business directives, can respond sooner to the employee’s performance, and is active in the coaching of the employee’s performance.
I had this thought that we should have two kinds of managers….functional managers who handle the operations and another manager in the department who is skilled at coaching and motivating employees to meet the business deliverables. They can be co-managers of a large department.
The current manager is torn between running the department, handling his/her own responsibilities, as well as managing employees. Most of the time, managing employees is a low priority.
Pat