The Peculiar Origins of the Performance Review, and Other HR Bureaucracy

It is the second- and third-place performers (Class 2) who will clamor the most loudly for the institution of a performance review process.  Their thinking goes like this:

First, they will ask (or somehow subtly inquire) as to why they were not the ones promoted or given a raise (or as big a raise).  The response will often not be a straightforward “Well, you weren’t just as good,” but it will almost certainly include an element of “We have to be consistent and can’t just give out raises whenever someone asks.”  This really means “we were being consistent when we decided and you weren’t good enough” but cognitive bias again causes them to interpret it as “if a comprehensive evaluation process were put in place, it would operate more fairly than this opaque process that just happened and I would clearly be recognized as being the best and rewarded accordingly!”  This is what will motivate them to press for the creation of a formal performance review process, because it will become apparent to them that they will not get a raise (or the promotion they want) until an org-wide performance review occurs.

It then becomes the most important thing in this person’s career advancement goals to cause a performance review to occur across the entire department (as opposed to what should be the real goal for career advancement, which is to try and improve one’s skills and performance).  This means that the entire Class 2 group of performers is now distracted with this goal, and their managers inevitably bow to this pressure, because hey, who can say no to the demand for an objective process around getting feedback on their performance?

q.v.

Do please go read the whole thing before criticising; it’s not necessarily going to be pleasant reading, but that doesn’t make it wrong.