Employee Reviews: Helpful or Harmful

[KristineS]

Yeah, that can be one benefit of the employee review. I'm not going to deny that.

[Baseline]

Its a setup for failure on both ends. Go with informal reviews for actual feedback- and completely divorce the money part from that with a seperate meeting. I was usually angry that I didn't get a bigger raise, and didn't hear anything else- and now, on the boss side of the table, I see the same thing from employee's. They are looking for A RAISE; not feedback. So go with informal, frequent feedback; and as a small company, give raises when you feel they are deserved, and when the improvement has occured. Or tell them that money is tight, or whatever the truth is- but don't tie it to the "review", or it becomes "the raise" discussion, not feedback.

IMO, of course......

[KristineS]

Baseline you make a good point. I think a lot of times the review becomes, for employees anyway, something they have to sit through to get to the raise part. I like your idea, frequent, informal feedback and a raise when it is warranted and possible. That makes a lot more sense. I wish more companies would follow that model.

[vangogh]

Keeping them separate from each other raises is a good point. I think they're tied together more for legal reasons than anything else. You want to have something as proof and in writing for why an employee received what they did. Most of the time it's going to be unnecessary, but it's for those one or two times or the possibility of the one lawsuit.

I agree they'd be more effective if the reviews were informal and not tied to the raise. I think as long as there is informal feedback given throughout the year the reviews become less of a big deal. Let them be there for the legal protection, but offer feedback in between as well.

[Baseline]

Hmmmmmm.......... I would be curious to know if that is right. My opinion (which, along with $1.51 will get a you cup of coffee..........) is that the "review" was a way to justify NOT paying employee's more. It would point out where improvement was needed, and steps to take to become more valuable, and yada yada yada....and BTW, you get a raise that is just about the same as inflation this year.

But I could be a little jaded. I know that I would give my "stars" raises without them even asking for one- and try to string along the merely mediocre with as little as possible. Because I already knew, a la Jack Welch, who was taking space and who was getting things done.

What I thought was HR was needing documentation on the "flaws" of said employee so if they filed for unemployment you had an arguement for denying it- which I never have done, and don't agree with. I wonder what others have found over the years?

[vangogh]

I don't know it's meant as a way to justify not paying. I think the formal reviews are more to have documentation in place for those times someone doesn't get the raise they want and decides to make waves about it. I also assume there are some legalities as far as having to offer feedback and documentation.

[huggytree]

for me review's always went along w/ raise time...they were the same thing...yearly review/raise

its a chance to say whats good with the employee and have the boss offer suggestions on things to improve on for a better raise next time....i always found the promise of a 'better' raise to be a false promise though...

most employees dislike the boss and his #2 man (who does the reviews)....sometimes #2 is a relative or a friend....sometimes he's the kiss@ss....but thats the way the world works...many of my customers like me because were friends too.....

i dont see any neg's to a review