Herbert Lewis, Guest Columnist

At some time in his or her career, every employer must come to grips with the unenviable task of firing an employee. It is one of the most dreaded management tasks. Many find themselves unable to sleep the night before. They will tell you that they break out in a cold sweat when the big moment comes. They take no pleasure in having to tell employees that they are so unsuitable for the job, that their performance is so poor, that they have to go.

It is not surprising. Few derive any enjoyment from telling another person that they don't measure up, that their performance on the job is unacceptable, that their minimal effort at doing the job they were hired to perform is so unsatisfactory that the employer/employee relationship needs to be terminated. It is such an onerous task for some that they will continue to accept poor performance from an employee rather than putting themselves through the ordeal.

Now, take that feeling of dread up one notch and you will be at the level at which most managers regard the annual performance review. Many will tell you that they hated them when they used to get them, and that they hate them even more that they have to give them. One manager told me some time ago that if he had a choice between performance reviews and having the flu for three days, he would rather have the flu every time.

And if those responsible for giving performance reviews are less enthralled with the task, then employees - those poor creatures on the receiving end of them - hate the performance review even more. Believe it or not, even peak performers don't look forward to their annual review. The unknown, being judged and criticised, and the inherent subjective levels which lead to favouritism and unfairness in scores, all contribute to making this commonly-used management tool considered by many to be one of the most destructive forces in the employment world.

The typical annual review process does nothing but harm. It creates division. It undermines morale. It creates fear and reduces cooperation between employees. It makes employees angry, jealous, and cynical. It unleashes a whole lot of negative energy, and employers quite often get little or nothing in return especially from employees who consider their review unfair. The question, therefore, is why do we all use them?

USE AND ABUSE

Organisation, processes, and systems are the cornerstones of present-day management theory. And with good reason. But human nature cannot be ignored and must be added to the mix. Innovation and change may be considered the necessary driving force to success today, but being the human beings who we are, we tend to fall back on safe practices which have been in place for years.

The annual performance review falls into this category. Why do we use them? Because everybody uses them. Because every employer we have ever worked for used them. Because they are an accepted part of business life.

Do we use them because they are an effective tool to help employees improve and grow? Some say no. Some say we use them for ulterior purposes - to cover ourselves against lawsuits, to justify different levels of pay. To provide once-a-year feedback, or to ensure that at least once each year we communicate with our employees. Those may or may not be worthwhile things to do, but they should not be mixed up with reviewing performance. And there are better methods for achieving those goals than putting their workforce through what some call 'hell' once a year.

There are many players in the workplace who argue that if, the true purpose of annual reviews is to increase performance and ensure employees are living up to commitments made at the time of hire, reviews fail miserably at the task. They say that reviews are too subjective and that they commonly do not reflect actual performance or the potential of the person appraised.

The formats used for performance reviews vary greatly. But they are all based on the same idea and follow the same type of process. The employee is rated against a list of established criteria and his/her performance is scored either on a numerical scale or a scale which uses designations such as "meets expectations" or " satisfactory".The overall score is used to determine how the employee has performed during the year, and the individual criteria are used to highlight performance in different areas. Seems like a reasonable system, right ?

But quite often, the manager carrying out the review is so busy doing other things that he either pays little attention to the process and views it as just another task which needs to be got out of the way quickly, or the review is put off until the manager has the time to fill out the form which generally means getting the job done with haste, and moving on to more 'pressing' matters.

Regardless of the reason for the reviews, it should never be done in haste. It is the job of the employer to develop his people to get them to become good performers and care and patience should be taken in conducting the review. That means providing specific information on how a job should be accomplished, setting levels of expectation, and ensuring the employee has all the necessary tools and equipment required to do the job. It also means monitoring the work and constantly communicating with your people on their performance.

When employers work with their employees to develop consistently good performance and reward them for his/her achievements, rather than destroy his/her morale with an annual performance, they will find that they have a happy and motivated workforce. And a motivated workforce means more productivity, better performance, and less waste - all the things which will make the business a winner.

Herbert Lewis is an industrial relations consultant and past president of the Jamaica Employers Federation. He may be contacted via e-mail at herblewis@cwjamaica.com.