When it comes to performance reviews, many companies miss the mark

Let’s put it diplomatically and take the emotion out of it: The whole performance-review process, now in season, doesn’t exactly exceed expectations.

Whether these annual events are meant to weed out laggards, reward achievers, assist development or act simply as a liability shield against discrimination lawsuits is anybody’s guess. Whatever their purpose, they attempt to give employees an individualized and intimate portrayal of their performance, but can end up saying more about the company than the individual.

If you hate performance reviews, that may be because you have spent more time than you can afford trying to understand whether the fact you “met expectations” is good or bad.

Worse, you may have to write the reviews, and suffer from the awkwardness of telling someone he’s more or less living a lie. After all, saying negative things about someone can lead managers to self-incrimination, providing proof that they failed to manage someone as effectively as their managerial peers, who, in turn, inflated the grades of all their staffers.

“One reason they don’t want to tell the truth is it creates responsibility,” said Aneil Mishra, associate professor of management at the Babcock Graduate School of Management at Wake Forest University. Managers think: “If you’re not doing your job, I have to figure out a way to make it better. And if you are doing a good job, I have to figure out a way to reward you.”

Books, such as “Perfect Phrases for Performance Reviews,” provide plug-and-play comments. Those employees who need improvement in the “grooming and appearance” category, for example, might be told, “Some have reported unpleasant body odor.” Note the “some have reported” construction intended to sound like fact instead of disputable opinion.

“I’m disappointed that there is such a demand for these books,” concedes Robert Bacal, one of the book’s co-authors and a consultant. “Managers aren’t intentionally deceiving employees, they’re deceiving themselves into thinking that what they’re doing is an objective process.”

Nowhere is that more evident than in the “forced ranking” systems where managers rate employees against their peers and fire the bottom percentage — better known as “rank and yank.”

Another method of review, the 360-degree feedback, aims to give a fuller picture of someone by corralling anonymous input from peers, subordinates and supervisors. At the manufacturing company that business-segment manager Ed Smiley works for, the 360-degree process has been suspended due to mutual back-scratching. “What you don’t get is true feedback,” Smiley said.