年度绩效评估有没有必要？

    不管是接受还是给出考评，我们每年都会碰到绩效考评。如果你曾经为此困扰、烦恼或担忧，我想给你一点安慰：即便是负责监督年度评审的人力资源主管都觉得它是白费力气。

    旧金山的奖励和赞赏咨询公司成就者（Achievers）最近访问了2,677人（其中雇员1,800人，人力资源经理645人，首席执行官232人）后，发现了这个令人困扰的现象。这家公司的客户包括微软（MSFT）、3M（MMM）、美国最大的药品零售商CVS（CVS）和Levi Strauss。

    虽然几乎所有接受调查的公司都会进行某种形式的年度评估，以此作为主要的手段，来向雇员反馈他们的业绩，但只有2%的人力资源官员认为这种评审有实际的意义。

    此外，研究还发现首席执行官脑海中的公司状况和雇员口中所称的实际情况完全不是一回事（什么？难道你不觉得吃惊吗？）。比如：57%的首席执行官深信，雇员的努力工作和贡献“经常受到赞赏”，而雇员中同意这一观点的只有9%。

    61%的雇员欢迎当场从老板和同事那里即时得到对他们工作的反馈，但只有24%得到过此类反馈。而54%的首席执行官相信已经给出了此类反馈。

    “出现这种差距的原因可能是因为首席执行官总是把自己的行为投射到整个公司，”成就者公司的主席雷泽•舒勒曼说。“老总们通常会为自己直接下属的工作表现提供频繁的反馈，所以他们认为整个体系中的所有人都在这么干。”

    如果连人力资源部门都找不到年度评审的任何真正价值，为何这种评估依然无处不在？部分解释就是，由于法律的原因，公司需要一种正式和标准化的方法来留下书面的记载，用以记录关于绩效问题的讨论。这样，一旦遭到解雇的员工提起诉讼，公司不会无案可查。但是，随着技术进步，每12个月一次的评估已经没有必要，经理完全可以实时跟踪、报告同样的信息。

    “年度评审已经是前电子时代的遗迹了，”舒勒曼认为。“很大程度上只是由于惯性才持续下来。如果你问：‘为什么这么做？’回答多半是‘因为我们一直这么做。’”他进一步指出，更高效的反馈方式是“每天、而不是一年只有一次的指导谈话。”

    愤青这时或许已经准确地才到了舒勒曼偏好哪种方式：他的公司出售软件给客户，用来试试反馈雇员的业绩表现。尽管如此，依然有足够的证据表明，如果没有每日或每周的工作谈话，特别是对良好表现的赞许，公司的最佳员工就可能会辞职。

    If you've ever been frustrated, annoyed, or otherwise perturbed by annual performance reviews -- whether giving them, getting them, or both -- here's something that may surprise you: Not even the HR people in charge of overseeing yearly appraisals really think they're worth doing.

    At least, that is one finding from a recent poll of 2,677 people (made up of 1,800 employees, 645 human resources managers, and 232 CEOs) by San Francisco-based rewards-and-recognition consulting firm Achievers, which numbers Microsoft (MSFT), 3M (MMM), CVS (CVS), and Levi Strauss among its clients.

    Although virtually all the companies surveyed use some form of annual evaluation as their chief means of giving performance feedback to employees, only 2% of HR people think these reviews accomplish anything useful.

    What's more, the study found a big disconnect between what CEOs think is going on below them and what employees say actually happens. (What? That doesn't shock you?) Consider: 57% of CEOs believe their people are "regularly recognized" for their hard work and contributions. Employees who agree: 9%.

    While 61% of employees say they would welcome immediate, on-the spot feedback from bosses and peers about how they're doing, only 24% say they get it. Meanwhile, 54% of CEOs believe they do.

    "That gap may be because CEOs are projecting, based on their own behavior," notes Achievers chairman Razor Suleman. "Chief executives usually give their own direct reports frequent feedback about their job performance, so they think everyone is doing that all down through the ranks."

    If not even the HR department sees any real value in annual reviews, why are they still so ubiquitous? Part of the answer is that, for legal reasons, companies need a formal, standardized method of creating a "paper trail" that documents discussions about performance problems, in case a terminated employee later decides to sue. Still, with the technology currently available, there's no logical reason why managers couldn't track and report the same information in real-time instead of once every 12 months.

    "The annual review is a relic of the pre-electronic past," observes Suleman. "It persists mostly out of inertia. If you ask, 'Why are you doing this?' the response you usually get is, 'Because we've always done it this way.'" A far more productive way of giving feedback, he adds, is "having coaching conversations every day, instead of once a year."

    A cynic might note -- correctly -- that Suleman naturally favors that approach: His company is in the business of selling software that clients use to give employees real-time updates on how they're doing. Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence that, without daily or weekly conversations about their work -- especially pats on the back for a job well done -- your best people are likely to quit.