Performance Appraisals -- 'Compared to Who?'

Photo Credit: https://unsplash.com/@sernarial

Engineers often love to measure; we measure system performance, we measure clock drift, we measure all sorts of fascinating things, we even occasionally measure ourselves.  Even so, show me an engineer that didn't encounter anxiety when contributing to their first performance appraisal and I'll show you someone who's pulling your chain.

I recently stumbled upon a Reddit post for a junior'ish software engineer who was asking for advice with respect to his recent performance appraisal and I'd have to say, he was getting a good deal of 'bad advice' in my opinion.  A good deal of the contributors seemed jaded, perhaps bitter, and contributed tales as to the dire consequences of bad performance reviews or suggesting that performance reviews were completely useless.

I remember being tasked with my first performance review, an overwhelming anxiety filled me for weeks.  The feeling resembled being lined up in a middle-school gymnasium by height; 'will I be too short', 'stand up straight', 'should I stand on my tiptoes'?  This original poster (OP) was bombarded with conflicting advice; "pay no attention to them, they are meaningless", "rank yourself exceptional or you'll never get a promotion", "rank yourself honestly, it's just a conversation starter".

Personally, I think performance appraisals are useful and I have found them to help me progress personally as well as professionally.  That said, I've been fortunate to work with companies, managers, and leadership that used them online with how I felt they'd be used. The anxiety and conflicting advice to this poor junior engineer are probably due to advice givers getting burned in their own experiences.  As valuable as performance reviews can be, they tend to have some fundamental blindspots which could be addressed in training and/or simply communication to the teams.  Twenty-*mumble* years in the profession, formal training by a variety of employers and these questions tend never to be addressed, frankly.....because they can be hard questions and typically extend beyond the expertise and/or reach of human resources (who tend to facilitate and provide the training).

What is Average?

Nearly every performance appraisal form applies some form of a numeric scale; 1-need improvement, 5-exceptional or something of that nature.  Training will tend to say "rate yourself" without going into much detail on the scale, instead focusing on the skill definitions.  Most engineers come readily armed with a flurry of mathematical prowess, well-versed in the normal distribution bell curve,  and likely are self-aware enough to easily compare themselves to the average if they know what an 'average' is.  In the absence of a clear definition they tend to define our own criteria.  The result; wild deviations in personal ratings, not uncommon to observe a seasoned engineer proficient in X rating themselves average and an engineer less proficient rating themselves exceptional and you're left with the compelling question "what gives?".  Lack of guidance from the organization, manager and leadership contributes to such a quandary.

As an organization, you could/should provide guidance by defining the sample set, for example:

Average in relation to the team:

You're surrounded by your team, work with them every day, and likely know how you stack up with respect to a set of skills for each.  Perhaps you stand head and shoulders above your team in terms of communications, or perhaps you are new to a technology and below average in knowledge on the subject.  The value of this guidance, it is easily relatable and a bell-curve distribution would be expected from the team collective.  "I'm better at some things than most of the team, short in others".  A junior or new team member would likely expect to be below average for a period until they gain the same degree of proficiency as the rest of the team.  A below average wouldn't be treated as a red-flag or brand, instead it would be used to align opportunities to improve on the skill (if needed/desired) or better align assignments with team members.

Average in relation to your colleagues:

Some companies take exceptional pride in "we only hire exceptional people" and such phrases tend to add confusion.  "If I'm working here, and the company is comprised of only exceptional folks then I guess I should rate myself exceptional."  Without clear guidance, one could easily arrive at this on their own.  Say you worked on tech XXX for the past years, have become proficient in it to an expert level in the general population, then hired into a company that specializes in XXX.  Are you now average, or exceptional? 

Average in relation to your experience:

Consider the talent pipeline, junior engineers coming onto the team, transitioning into senior contributors over the course of their career.  Should they rate themselves low until they become as proficient with experience or should they rate themselves with respect to their years of experience?  Or should they rate themselves solely with respect to their peers sharing the same title/experience? 

How Will These Be Used?

The organization and leadership primarily control how performance appraisals are applied within the organization, but rarely formally communicate it.  A great deal of anxiety and fear with respect to performance appraisals are a consequence of this.  A fearing employee may feel that the organization may only promote those with exceptional ratings, use the ratings as a litmus test when downsizing or use the ratings for pay increases.  When you fear your ratings will be used against you you're more likely to elevate them artificially.  It's been my observation that peer reviews are often orchestrated and authored with a specific purpose, but later find their way into broader use.  Additionally, in an industry of lean development philosophies no one wants to dedicate significant time into something that could be streamlined or eliminated, time is too precious to waste.

Are They Scored Consistently?

As a manager, I strived to be consistent in rating my team.  Humans are easily influenced beings and it is important to self-manage external factors.  "Whelp, a miserable Monday, I have a ripping headache.....let's get back to John's performance appraisal" -- a recipe for disaster for you, John and the team.  It unfortunately doesn't end there, suppose the H/W manager and S/W manager used different definitions of 'average', one rating their team higher than the other.  Performance appraisals tend not to be contained to departments, so how will the VP of Engineering interpret this inconsistency?  Will they think one department is stronger than another?  Will HR?  The CEO?

These are but a few considerations to take into consideration, lack of guidance results in a team, or individuals simply 'filling in the gaps' which can be beneficial, but can also add complications and confusion down the line.

Performance appraisals can be extraordinarily useful, to an individual, to a team and to a company.  They can facilitate a self-directed review of who you are, what you're good at, and who you want to become.  They set a stage to have an honest dialog between individual contributors and leadership, how they see each other and how they affect one another, and can provide a popcorn trail tracking the progression of a fresh employee to one that progresses to an organizational giant.   Their sheer existence enforces a 'measure what you care about' philosophy and an organization committed to professional growth of their team really demands their use.  That said, with a little clarification of definitions they could reduce a good deal of anxiety, confusion and inconsistencies.