In America, we’re just one day away from Election Day, which is our democratic opportunity to give an impactful performance review to the people who lead our country, states, and localities. I voted a few weeks ago, and I am hopeful that the results of this election will yield a significant change in leadership.
On a much more micro level, at Stonemaier Games I’m wrapping up the first year of our 8-year existence when there are full-time employees other than myself. At some organizations, this is the time for performance reviews, but I must admit I’ve never quite understood this practice. If I have concerns about someone’s performance, why would I wait until a designated annual time to mention it?
However, that’s a fairly limited (albeit traditional) view of performance reviews. I think there is value in providing a specific forum for feedback, and these are the questions I’m currently considering:
- What professional accomplishment are you most proud of this year? I try to thank Joe and Alex all the time, but this is an opportunity to celebrate something that means a lot to them. It’s also a chance for me to see what is actually meaningful to them, as it could impact future operational decisions.
- Did you add any ongoing responsibilities that weren’t in your original job description? In my experience, when you’re as lucky as I am to work with people like Joe and Alex, they tend to end up doing a lot more than what they were hired for. These are often incremental changes that are difficult to see on a day-to-day level, so a performance review is a good time to highlight them and consider corresponding salary increases.
- Which part of your job is the least satisfying and why? This is a tricky question to ask, because it’s possible that the answer isn’t actionable. There’s probably some necessary part of everyone’s job that you just don’t enjoy. However, even if the responsibility must remain with the person, it’s possible that a small adjustment may make a big difference.
- Is there an aspect of Stonemaier Games you would like to improve next year? I’m not entirely sure about this question, because Joe and Alex are really good at identifying, sharing, and actively improving aspects of our company. But perhaps this is a good chance to look at the big picture moving forward.
- If Stonemaier Games no longer existed, what would you aspire to do?
- Is there anything I can do to better serve Stonemaier Games and/or help you reach your goals?
- Is there anything else regarding you, the company, or me that you’ve been processing and would like to discuss? I try to regularly encourage Joe and Alex to challenge norms at Stonemaier Games. But like in any relationship, there are probably a few things that take time to process before you know what you really want to say. This is the chance to say those things.
I like the idea of providing these questions to employees in advance so they can think about their answers. Also, while I’ve focused on full-time employees here, I’m just as grateful for our part-timers (Alan and Morten) and independent contractors who focus a significant amount of time on Stonemaier Games (like our graphic designer [Christine], our production project manager [Shannon], and our replacement parts helpers).
I’d love to hear your thoughts on these questions. Are there any questions in performance reviews that you’ve asked or been asked that you think are worth adding to the list?
***
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content!
20 Comments on “Performance Reviews: What’s Your Approach?”
Leave a Comment
If you ask a question about a specific card or ability, please type the exact text in your comment to help facilitate a speedy and precise answer.
Your comment may take a few minutes to publish. Antagonistic, rude, or degrading comments will be removed. Thank you.
Very interesting stuff Jamey, and I like your approach.
For newly hired staff, fresh out of college I would have frequent one-on-one meetings with them, typically once a month.
Note: these were then not performance reviews but more part of supporting them in their development.
During those meetings we would use the retrospective methodology stolen from the Agile software development methodology, even though we are not a software company.
The retrospective focuses on four simple questions (“conversation starters”)
1. What went well?
2. What have we learned?
3. What went wrong?
4. What still puzzles me?
Re 1: this is in some way similar to your first question
Re 2: this allows for acknowledging positive development. Employees often find out that they have learned way more than they realized. It also helps in identifying things where tasks were perhaps poorly defined or overly ambitious or where we did not provide the right training etc.
Re 3: the question sounds more negative than it is meant to :)
Part of learning is making mistakes. In an open and transparent culture, talking freely about mistakes allows for better collegial support. And again, it might help in in identifying things where tasks were perhaps poorly defined or overly ambitious or where we did not provide the right training etc.
Re 4: this allows for talking about areas where additional support or clarifications are helpful
I strongly recommend the approach outlined in the book No Rules Rules, by Netflix founder Reed Hastings. I don’t have time to outline it here but I can’t recommend the book enough, especially as it pertains to giving feedback.
Thanks! I’ll check it out.
My very large company uses APEX (achieving performance excellence) for reviews and I’m a fan of the structure. The company sets large goals, people managers and individual contributors then set goals that say how what they do relates to the larger goals. Then you break that down into specific actions you do as part of your job. Create a plan at the beginning of the year, update it in October, then get measured against it. Biggest problems with it is that it sometimes creates the perverse incentive to just do the thing because you said you would, regardless of impact, but at a smaller company you could be less punitive for changes, and instead use those as jumping off points to talk about changing a role or business practice. In researching to make sure that APEX is publicly available, I did find out it was initially developed for the National Institute of Corrections, and that is a little icky, but I’m happy I know that now.
In both my time in the military and now with the Bureau, I’m impressed with leaders who take the time to talk to their folks at regular intervals throughout the year and not just during the midterm feedback sessions (usually the six-month mark) and at the end of year rating period.
Life changes and so do people’s expectations about a job. Your #5 goes to the heart of the “dialogue” aspect for the meeting. It also depends on the individual. I’ve had linguists who are great at their job, but due to cultural differences, they felt as though they couldn’t criticize something that I had done. Breaking those barriers is essential in ensuring that there’s a clear line of communication. As always, and as you’ve stated, give your folks the time to reflect on those questions for a more meaningful discussion.
Thanks Joe! I do like the idea of talking on a regular basis, not just once or twice a year. Keeping that line of communication open is important to me.
One of the things I love about small companies is you’re so much more connected to each other in the day-to-day that there aren’t (m)any surprises when it comes to formally discussing these types of questions.
One thing which really stuck with me from an old boss was that they wanted to know what my aspirations were not necessarily within the company but without. In other words, what did I want to do when I left.
The logic was that not everyone will want to stay forever and the company had two choices – get you the experience/exposure you want so that you can eventually leave to fulfill your aspiration, or deny you that exposure in the hopes that you will stay longer. Inevitably the people that are being exposed to the things they need to fulfill their other aspirations end up staying far longer and are more productive because they’re getting value from their company.
I really like that, Ben. While I ultimately want our employees to be happy wherever they are, if I can help them find that happiness at Stonemaier for a long time, that would be ideal.
These are really good. I especially like: Did you add any ongoing responsibilities that weren’t in your original job description? I’m going to add that one to my toolbelt.
I also force myself to give them a couple things I think they could improve, no matter how much of an all star they are. It’s usually small things that aren’t worth mentioning each time they happen, but over the course of a year, it’s enough to talk about it. For example, maybe someone is consistently a few minutes late to each meeting or something about their communication could be tweaked to better relay information.
I agree with Derrick too that I like when the yearly review corresponds directly with the company values. How well are you exemplifying those values? Otherwise the values are usually forgotten and the company doesn’t have as strong a culture as it could.
Brian: That’s an interesting point about advising your employees about even just a few small areas of growth and improvement. I can see that being invaluable.
Once upon a time, I worked in an IT department for a larger organization, and performance reviews were done around the same time that budgets were done for the upcoming year. It was an opportunity for everyone involved to have these discussions that others have mentioned and to make sure that the rank-and-file were thinking the same thoughts as management about how money was going to be spent the next year. It was a pin on the board sort of check-in, because we were also a tight enough group that management was very aware of how the team was doing and the team was very capable of bringing issues to management when they arose.
And yeah, when I went off and started my own company and had a couple of employees, this sort of landmark was where we did the holistic check-in. Just to be sure. Were we meeting the company mission and goals? Was I compensating them appropriately? Were their job titles accurate and representative? Did they need more duties and training opportunities? There weren’t any surprises really, because we all talked and worked closely together, but it was always good to make sure we officially answered all of these questions once a year.
Thanks Mark! I appreciate you sharing your methods as a business owner compared to the methods at your previous company.
For starters (and you probably already have this instinct), be certain it is a dialogue – not just a one-sided conversation. Those types of reviews can be so disengaging.
I agree with the comments about personal growth/goal setting as a key component of an interview. The organization I work for has defined five core values and so part of our framework in our review is to examine the performance through the lens of each of those values as well. We also have employees complete a self-evaluation which is identical in form to the one that their supervisor will complete.
One of the practices that we have implemented is also having regularly scheduled one on one meetings throughout the year. These are usually biweekly (maybe monthly), but they allow a supervisor/manager and employee to check in regularly on progress and discuss any performance issues or concerns that may exist. This means that when a performance review comes around each year, there should really be no surprises. These one on one meetings can also have a side benefit of knowing you are on someone’s calendar if they are really busy and you have an item for discussion that does not have immediate urgency.
Derrick: Thanks! I definitely agree about it being a two-way conversation.
What my current company does is focus more on your personal growth than job performance (like you said, performance issues should be addressed immediately as it comes up, not once per year) .
You set yourself some personal goals you want to accomplish for the next year and then it gives you the opportunity to grow how you want, not necessarily how the company thinks you should grow. Questions at my annual review are things like “What did you learn this year? How did you contribute to the company/team/community? How far did you get to completing your goals and what did you learn along the way? Is there anything the company can do better to help you meet your goals?”
By focusing on the people and enabling their personal growth, it helps employees shape their career how they want and encourages them to improve for the sake of improving with the cpany providing support on the way of paying for training/conferences/courses, and the company is banking on those employees performing well as a byproduct of that growth. So far it seems to be working well enough, but there are always things that can be tweaked with any process.
Kyle: I like the idea of focusing on enabling personal growth! Thanks for sharing these questions.
Something that might be a little bit tricky to approach would be the topic of compensation. Not sure what kind of relationship you have with your employees but making sure that they are fairly compensated for their work (market rate or better) and asking if there is anything you can do to help.
It can be difficult from an employee’s viewpoint to bring this topic up so if the employer brought it up willingly, it would be very refreshing for an employee.
Plus with COVID this year has been extraordinarily tough on a lot of people.
I think that’s an excellent question to add!
I feel it’s important to ask for feedback on your performance as a supervisor.
I agree! That’s in the last question, though perhaps it could be a question on its own