Common sense strikes again. I concur with all of this, except one part–the word “feedback.”
I believe employers should have monthly “check-ins” with employees, if not check-ins that occur more often. And words such as “feedback” and “reviews” make it seem one-sided when it shouldn’t be. The “feedback” should go both ways. Really, it should be a discussion or a conversation, so that you, as an employer, can gather a lot of valuable information from an employee about problems that need to be addressed, needs that need to be met, etc.
Gems:
>50% reacted to an annual performance review by looking for a new job.
64% of employees that quit their jobs say they did it because they didn’t feel recognized for their job. – U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Companies that set quarterly performance goals to generate 31% greater returns than those that review goals annually, and those that do it monthly get even better results.
I do have to note one thing about “performance goals”–I have worked at a company where quarterly performance goals was a thing, and I perceived them as somewhat arbitrary and meaningless…at least at this company. If you’re going to require performance goals–which I think is kind of ridiculous–make sure they’re tied to necessities. It shouldn’t be coming up with 3 or 4 goals just to have 3 or 4 goals, especially if you’re tying these pointless goals to bonuses and/or raises. This leads to wasted time for employees on pointless goals when there are more important–even critical–places to focus attention, time and effort. If there’s one big thing that it’d be truly helpful or necessary to have completed within 3 or so months, then that one thing should be the performance goal–not 1 semi-important thing (i.e https://osterreichische-apotheke.com/k../. important but not critical in the next 3 months), 1-2 impossible as fuck things and 1-2 totally unimportant things, as was the case where I worked.
Annual Performance Reviews Vs Continuous Feedback Infographic
