微软与戴尔放弃员工绩效评估，但这似乎不是个好主意

    媒体开始注意到，微软、戴尔、埃森哲和纽约人寿等大公司均开始放弃管理界最令人厌恶的传统之一：绩效评估。《华尔街日报》在几天前注意到了这种趋势，上个月，《哈佛商业评论》和CNN财经频道均发表了与此有关的文章。这些文文章的主题是一致的：哈利路亚，绩效评级终于死了。

    要不是由于一个问题，我也会为此举喝彩的。不同方式的绩效评级只是一种工具，许多公司轻视它，并非因为工具本身不好，而是因为使用工具的人不称职。公司真正要做的是提高工具使用者的技能水平，帮助员工变得更好，尽管这项任务更加艰巨，但领导者可能认为，他们可以通过改变工具来改善公司的绩效——这是一种危险的心态。

    对于绩效评估这一工具好坏的争论，所有人最喜欢的一个例子是杰克·韦尔奇担任通用电气CEO时推行的强制评级制度：每年必须将所有员工划分出高、中、低三档（随着制度的变化，具体的定义也在改变），并且必须将每个人的级别告诉他们。在通用电气如日中天的时候，许多公司采用了这一制度，但结果并不美好。有些员工对自己得到的评级感到愤怒，有的感觉这种制度造成了彼此对立：我要进入一个更高的级别，必然有人要被挤下去。微软直到两年前才放弃这种制度，公司员工对此感到非常高兴。

    当时，我曾与戴维·卡尔霍恩讨论过这个问题。卡尔霍恩曾是通用电气的高管，在尼尔森公司担任过CEO。他是这种制度的支持者，也曾在尼尔森公司推行这种制度。他的回答非常简单：这种制度的重点是“强制进行对话”。许多管理者讨厌严厉且诚实地告诉员工评级结果。而这项制度正是为了迫使他们这么做。对于其他方式，他没有什么意见，但按照他的经验，哪怕你让管理者有一丁点避免给员工诚实评价的回旋余地，大多数人也会大加利用。而如果出现这种情况，员工将永远不知道他们的真正表现，从而也就失去了自我提高的机会。

    许多放弃旧评级制度的公司，正在寻找其他方式，以强迫管理者进行诚实的对话。例如，Adobe公司的“核查”制度吸引了不少人的关注，这项制度要求经常提供反馈，但没有一年一次的要求。其他公司也开始采用这种制度。

    不论采用哪种方式，领导者面临的真正问题在于文化。在你的公司，对上级、下级或同级坦诚谈论个人绩效，在文化上是否合适？如果是，你的公司肯定是一家优秀的公司。否则，公司的其他方面也很难做到出色。不论使用哪一种评估工具，公司都必须改变文化。这种改变首先要从最高层开始。（财富中文网）

    译者：刘进龙/汪皓

    审校：任文科

    The media have begun to notice that several big, famous companies—Microsoft, Dell, Accenture, New York Life, and many more—are abandoning one of the most loathed traditions in management: the performance review. The Wall Street Journal noted the trend a few days ago, and last month the Harvard Business Review and CNNMoney documented it. The theme is consistent: Hallelujah, performance ratings are dead.

    And I’d be cheering too, except for one problem. Performance ratings in their multiple forms are tools, and at many companies they’re despised not because the tools are bad, but because the users of the tools are inept. The danger is that leaders may conclude they can improve their organization’s performance by changing the tool when the real issue, a much tougher one, is improving the skills of those who use any tool for helping employees get better.

    Everyone’s favorite example in the bad-tool argument is the forced ranking system popularized by General Electric when Jack Welch was CEO: Every employee every year had to be placed in a category—high, middle, or low (the exact definitions of which changed as the system evolved)—and had to be told where he or she stood. Many companies adopted the system when GE was flying high, and many of them had terrible experiences. Some employees were furious at how they were ranked, and some felt the system pitted them against one another: For me to be moved into a higher category, someone else must be moved out. Microsoft used the system until two years ago, and employees rejoiced when the company dumped it.

    At that time, I asked Dave Calhoun about it. A former GE executive, he was CEO of Nielsen and a fan of the system, which he used at Nielsen. His response was simple: The whole point “is to force a conversation,” he said. Many managers absolutely hate to tell employees, rigorously and honestly, where they stand. This is a way of making them do it. He had no quarrel with other means of making them do it—but experience has shown that if you give managers a half-inch of wiggle room to avoid giving employees an honest assessment, most of them will use it. In which case employees never know how they’re really doing and have a far less chance of improving.

    Many of the companies that are ditching the old rating systems are finding other ways to force that honest conversation. Adobe, for example, has attracted much attention with its “Check-In” system that requires feedback often, not annually. Other companies are adopting it.

    In this as in so much else, the real issue for leaders is culture. In your organization, is it culturally okay to be candid about performance, whether speaking upward, downward, or sideways? If so, your organization is probably an excellent performer. If not, then nothing else in the company will work well. Regardless of the evaluation tool being used, the culture needs changing. And change starts at the top.