Performance reviews only make sense if all voices matter in an equal way. The lowest person on the totem should have a right to express how they feel about the performance of the CEO - Glassdoor style and those votes should have a tangible impact. If that is not the case and the people lower in the food chain don't feel confident about telling the powers that be that their manager is doing a supremely shitty job, then it does not matter if feedback comes all year long or annually.
I have almost never seen a culture of skip level managers trying to consistently gather feedback on the performance of the manager from those they manage. This tosses accountability out the wind immediately. There is no particular reason why upward feedback has to be bounded by so many rules of engagement. That serves as a deterrent to providing any feedback at all because the conditions are impossibly uncomfortable. People do need their raises and promotions. The manager has the power to grant or deny those wishes. That is already a major impediment to providing candid feedback on said manager. If anything, the process should allow for unfiltered, no holds barred feedback. It is upto the recipient of the feedback to process it and come to reasonable conclusions. This is an expectation from a person in that role. If they are not capable of it, then perhaps they are not fit for the job.
This particular piece of wisdom was particularly amusing and juvenile in the context of senior executive who are also people managers:
To keep your feedback solution-oriented, offer your idea of the best way forward. Future-focused feedback, or “feed forward” as it's sometimes called, is intended to help its recipient grow. Instead of concentrating on the past, discuss potential solutions, such as behavior changes they could make moving forward.
The reality is people are set in their ways by the time they reach the highest levels of the organization. What you see is what you get. There is almost no way you can "feed forward" such a person's management style. They are who they are because it has worked for them very well for a long time - if it had not, they would not be in the positions that they are in. There is no earthly reason for them to change. The question is more one about fit - do the teams the manage (and the company) benefit from their style - whatever that might be. Or are they likely to steer the company the way of Vice.
Comments