Performance Evaluations that "Meet Expectations"

Numerical scoring on performance evaluations -- distilling a person’s professional journey and daily fluctuations into a backward-looking score indicating alignment with your expectations -- was always problematic. The for-profit sector already experimented with losing numerical rating some years ago, and from what I am seeing in the field, the pendulum is swinging in the nonprofit sector now too, with more organizations losing the scoring and going to narrative evaluations that highlight positives and negatives. And for sure, increased narrative content on evaluations and (even better!) a shift to ongoing feedback are much more helpful.

But I’ve noticed another shift that is not so helpful.

Increasingly I am seeing evaluation tools that don’t answer the fundamental question – is the employee succeeding in this organization?

These unhelpful tools elicit self reflection and manager feedback on strengths and challenges, without calling for synthesis – a clear takeaway of whether the employee is on track. Especially within evaluation processes that are limited to annual or semi-annual touchpoints, this can lead to confusion at best, or at worst, wildly different perceptions of how an employee is doing. I have guided quite a few managers in navigating situations wherein performance “evaluation” processes were in place, but their employees were completely caught off guard when approached about imminent corrective action.

A good evaluation process leaves room to: acknowledge successes, identify moments to learn from, provide two-way feedback, and outline a path for overall professional growth. But it should not compromise providing absolute clarity on how well the employee is currently meeting overall organizational expectations. An upfront, candid evaluation allows room for potential alignment and improvement. An equivocating evaluation might look nice on the surface, but doesn’t provide an employee with a fair opportunity to course correct.

When an evaluation lacks candor about overall performance – due to the manager’s conflict avoidance or the evaluation tool’s framework of giving equal weight to strengths and weakness -- the evaluation is missing one of the most fundamental elements that a performance evaluation is intended to address – an articulation of how well the employee is performing.

And while skirting a hard conversation and providing positive framing might feel better in the moment, it’s no favor to an employee to not be transparent about the true evaluation process happening below the surface – the confidential conversations and internal deliberations that lead to decisions about separation or promotion

No one wins when a “performance evaluation” does not articulate how well an employee is performing, and an evaluation tool only has value in so far as it accurately informs & reflects the organization’s actual decision-making process.