Have you ever noticed how reluctant senior managers are to hold performance reviews with their team members, unlike their more junior counterparts who diligently complete their reviews thoroughly and in good time?
When I was the human resources director at the Bank of England, I checked on managers’ progress in completing performance reviews. You may have done the same. We hoped to find that all the appraisals had been finished a month or so after the year end. Indeed our trade union representatives requested this, which seemed reasonable. In my desire to “nudge” everyone to get on with annual reviews, I would publish the completion rates by department in my monthly report.
The report, which included what I thought would be a selection of interesting juicy statistics, would be published on the bank intranet for all employees to read. Anyone could see which heads of department were the laggards and were not getting appraisals done. This, and a few other tactics, got managers more interested in performance appraisals, to the extent that they wanted the whole process redesigned – a win!
However, it is ironic that it is often the more senior managers who don’t do their performance reviews. The more senior we are, the more embarrassed we get about reviewing someone else’s performance. It somehow seems demeaning and uncomfortable. And yet many executives and senior managers speak of their thirst for feedback and how they would like to have an appraisal with their boss.
I have often had to encourage both sides to have an open discussion. After all, good performers like to know they are considered as such; this is good basic talent management.
Just to contrast with this, at the very top, reviews for board directors are now required by the UK Corporate Governance Code. Last updated in June 2010, the code stipulates good practice for boards in businesses that have a premium listing of shares in the UK – our largest public companies. The code says that chairmen should “regularly review and agree with each director their training and development needs”. Also that senior independent chairmen and the non-executive directors should meet “at least annually to appraise the chairman’s performance”.
Boards, as groups or teams, must also have a performance review and, for the bigger companies, this must be externally facilitated at least once every three years according to the new code. Imagine your executive and other teams opening themselves to external performance review?
Although there is much good practice at the top of organisations, it is important that this cascades down. Our research shows that for 2010, 34 per cent of FTSE 100 companies carried out an external facilitated board evaluation – which is about right for a three-year cycle. However, just 17 per cent of FTSE 250 boards managed one, so we’ll see more of these external evaluations over the next three years.
But, just remember, if senior managers say they haven’t had time to do a review, or didn’t think it was worth bothering, they would definitely have one if they ever got to be chairman!
Louise Redmond is director, Law Debenture Governance Services![]()
When I was the human resources director at the Bank of England, I checked on managers’ progress in completing performance reviews. You may have done the same. We hoped to find that all the appraisals had been finished a month or so after the year end. Indeed our trade union representatives requested this, which seemed reasonable. In my desire to “nudge” everyone to get on with annual reviews, I would publish the completion rates by department in my monthly report.
The report, which included what I thought would be a selection of interesting juicy statistics, would be published on the bank intranet for all employees to read. Anyone could see which heads of department were the laggards and were not getting appraisals done. This, and a few other tactics, got managers more interested in performance appraisals, to the extent that they wanted the whole process redesigned – a win!
However, it is ironic that it is often the more senior managers who don’t do their performance reviews. The more senior we are, the more embarrassed we get about reviewing someone else’s performance. It somehow seems demeaning and uncomfortable. And yet many executives and senior managers speak of their thirst for feedback and how they would like to have an appraisal with their boss.
I have often had to encourage both sides to have an open discussion. After all, good performers like to know they are considered as such; this is good basic talent management.
Just to contrast with this, at the very top, reviews for board directors are now required by the UK Corporate Governance Code. Last updated in June 2010, the code stipulates good practice for boards in businesses that have a premium listing of shares in the UK – our largest public companies. The code says that chairmen should “regularly review and agree with each director their training and development needs”. Also that senior independent chairmen and the non-executive directors should meet “at least annually to appraise the chairman’s performance”.
Boards, as groups or teams, must also have a performance review and, for the bigger companies, this must be externally facilitated at least once every three years according to the new code. Imagine your executive and other teams opening themselves to external performance review?
Although there is much good practice at the top of organisations, it is important that this cascades down. Our research shows that for 2010, 34 per cent of FTSE 100 companies carried out an external facilitated board evaluation – which is about right for a three-year cycle. However, just 17 per cent of FTSE 250 boards managed one, so we’ll see more of these external evaluations over the next three years.
But, just remember, if senior managers say they haven’t had time to do a review, or didn’t think it was worth bothering, they would definitely have one if they ever got to be chairman!
Louise Redmond is director, Law Debenture Governance Services