Get Rid of the Performance Review!: How Companies Can Stop Intimidating, Start Managing--and Focus on What Really Matters

by Samuel A. Culbert, Lawrence Rout

The performance review. It is one of the most insidious, most damaging, and yet most ubiquitous of corporate activities. We all hate it. And yet nobody does anything about it.

Until now...

Straight-talking Sam Culbert, management guru and UCLA professor, minces no words as he puts managers on notice that -- with the performance review as their weapon of choice -- they have built a corporate culture based on intimidation and fear. Teaming up with Wall Street Journal Senior Editor Lawrence Rout, he shows us why performance reviews are bogus and how they undermine both creativity and productivity. And he puts a good deal of the blame squarely on human resources professionals, who perpetuate the very practice that they should be trying to eliminate.

But Culbert does more than merely tear down. He also offers a substitute -- the performance preview -- that will actually accomplish the tasks that performance reviews were supposed to, but never holding people accountable for their actions and their results, and giving managers and their employees the kind of feedback they need for improving their skills and to give the company more of what it needs.

With passion, humor, and a rare insight into what motivates all of us to do our best, Culbert offers all of us a chance to be better managers, better employees and, indeed, better people. Culbert has long said his goal is to make the world of work fit for human consumption. "Get Rid of the Performance Review!" shows us how to do just that.

Genres: Business, Leadership, Management, Nonfiction

256 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2010

About the author

Samuel A. Culbert is an award winning author, researcher and full-time, tenured professor at UCLA’s Anderson School of Management. His laboratory is the world of work where he puts conventional managerial assumptions under a microscope to uncover and replace dysfunctional practices. He holds a B.S. in Systems Engineering and Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology.

Reviews

[Don · Rating 2 out of 5]

In the interest of full disclosure I am a human resources professional with a long successful career that has included three employers: a large manufacturer (private sector), a large public university and currently a very highly rated non-profit. After reading the first half of this book I felt battered and bruised; like a combination of Hitler, Mussolini, and Col. Klink. Instead of "shooting the messenger," this book, a majority of the time, has the messenger shooting the audience. Alienating a large part of the audience that would read this book would not seem to further his cause.

Of all the HR professionals I know, maybe one fits Culbert's opinion. In my experience HR people hate the performance review process as much as anyone. Culbert states "I wrote it because I believe - no, I know - that there are many bosses who would like to change that game, but they feel handcuffed by the rules already in play." HR professionals I know feel the same way. Upper management demands that HR do the reviews as part of their reason for being instead of allowing HR to focus on leadership and development, in my opinion.

Written with sensation to elicit interest, the book spends much more time proofing what's wrong with the system. That's fine, I agree. But, there is not enough time spent on the performance previews, their value and how to successfully implement. And I do think there is value there.

My current employer encourages servant leadership and professional/personal development. We are looking to abolish the performance review. I am still researching and have many articles, papers and books to read in order to make a recommendation.

My rating is low due to the ranting and because the valuable content was overlooked in part in favor of proving what everyone already knows.

[Teechbiz · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm so excited. We've recently changed how performance reviews are conducted where I work and many people are upset with the change. I'm going to check this book out and perhaps slip it under the nose of my boss

[John Stepper · Rating 4 out of 5]

It reads like a rant, and I wish there was more data and references, but it makes a powerful conceptual argument: the annual performance review is harmful to the firm and its employees. We need to eliminate it.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

A quick read, with a funny, hard edge.

I agree that there must be a better way to handle performance reviews, and I would be more than happy to drop them entirely - and I think that his proposal of a performance preview is worthy of exploration. in my 5 years as a manager, I don't think the performance review has ever changed any of my team's actual work. I don't think they're objective, and I don't think they are a great management tool.

Unfortunately, the author offers absolutely no hard statistics or facts to back up his claim that removing performance reviews will improve staff morale and performance - which makes it a bit tough to take it to your supervisors for discussion . . . More hard data is needed, rather than just anecdotes.

[Ilib4kids · Rating 5 out of 5]

658.3125 CUL
eAUDIOBOOK 658.3125 CUL

More notes on https://ilib4kids.weebly.com/

I recommend this book who want to improve performance, want to healthy competition, collaboration etc. You weren't managing, you were intimidating. You weren't talking, you were dictating. You weren't treat people with respect, you were treating them condescension cloaked in a veneer of corporation and concern.

I really want to read Beyond Bullsh*t: Straight-Talk at Work, but this is not available in the library, so I read this one instead to get familiar his work.
Abolishing Performance Appraisals: Why They Backfire and What to Do Instead by Tom Coens

My summary: change it from performance review to performance preview, it is just a name. The big difference is how to enable honest straight talking, put HR (They're there to help managers work with subordinates. They aren't there to run the ship. Bad example: 中共党小组) and boss/subordinate into its place it supposed to be, a service or a servant to help organization grow.
Most people strive, whenever they can, to acquire new skills and better themselves. The drive for improvement goes on big and little ways, both at work and in life more generally. So Instead of performance review, author argues we need performance preview. It does all things performance review are supposed to do but don't. I basically agree with author.

Performance Reviews (PR) focus on finding faults and placing blame, Performance Previews (PP) focus on achieving results.
PR focus on deviations from some ideal as weakness, PP celebrate difference.
PR are about comparing employees, PP treat peoples as individuals.
PR create a competition between boss and subordinate, PP create a team where both teammates inform and learn from each other.
PR are one-side-accountable and boss=dominated nonologue.PP are two-sided conversations, with both sides accountable.
PR are thunderbolts from on high, with the boss speaking for the company. PP are one person's opinion.
PR means that if the subordinate screw up, the subordinate suffers. PP put both subordinate's and boss's skin in the game.
PR allow the big boss to go on autopilot. PP force the big boss to become involved. PR is a scheduled event. PP happens wherever, wherever.
PR give HR people too much power. PP put HI people their appropriate, supporting role.
PR are hated, and managers and subordinates avoid doing them until they are forced to. PP can be affirming and welcomed by emloyees.

I believe the structure and logic of performance preview can be summarized in three profoundly simple questions that a boss and each of his or her subordinates might ask and answer for one another: p180
1. What are you getting from me that you like and find helpful? If relevant, comment on the bigger picture: how we are organized and how people and units interact.
2. What are you getting from me (and /or the system) that impedes your effectiveness and would like to have stopped?
3. What are you not getting from me (and/or the system) that you think would enhance your effectiveness, and tell me, specific to you, why do you need it at this time?

p144 I also want to dispel misperception: that I ma against evaluating performance and holding people accountable for results. Nothing could be more off the mark. I believe every imperfect performer (read: everyone) must receive feedback relevant to improving his or her effectiveness and accomplishing company results. Consistently screw up, consistently give the company less than what is requires, and you will be shown the door.

The bad consequence of performance review
1. a forced bell curve is damage to everyone. Author criticize Jack Welch's General Electric, which was lauded -and copies- by may for its policy rating 20 percent of its staff as outstanding, 70 percent as average, and 10 percent in need of improvement, with the goal to fire the bottom 10 percent. It's a process "affectionately" referred to as "Rand and Yank". (p124, I agree with author, surely people have internal desire to improve, also they are slacker, but this forced bell-curve make competition poisonous).
2. Confused with constructive purpose of hierarchical approach to organizational structure and destructive of command-control thinking, not a parterning mentality in hierarchical approach to relationships. 皇帝专制，不是民主制度, It is ingrained in us so much, we have to blast them out of way.
A good leader is a servant.
3. Performance review focus on the boss finding faults and subordinates scared to give their opinions, where straight talk is the exception, even valid feedback will be dismissed, and rendered useless. It should the goal to create an environment in which all parties feel safe enough to be honest with one another. We have to replace the one-side accountable, boss-administered / subordinate-received performance with two-sided, reciprocally accountable performance preview. We need a dialogue, not a monologue.
4. The worst part of it a lost chance to change and cynicism about the future.
5. People typically gloss over the positive, and dwell on the wave of negatives.
6. People are skeptical and personally defensive about feedback that put them in a category. Categories imply there's something about what they always do.
7. The performance review pits college versus colleges, department versus department. And, most important, it pits boss versus subordinate by a forced bell curve.

To run business or anything well, you need strive for internal drive.

Lesson to learn
1. Know people before change them. . You can't understand what someone else is doing until you know the mind-set that person is using and learn the ground for their attachment to it. The first step in getting that creature to change its ways entail facing the fact that you are blind: you don't know its perpective, adn so ou don't know what's blocking the creature from agreeing to what you want - or blocking you from understanding that what you want is unreasonable in the first place. p103.
2. best separate pay to performance review. Bonus and pay is not related to performance. It is too often to be used for favorite.
3. performance review is only slight about perfomer. It's mainly about everybody else.
4. Performance review is self-seving, biased opinion cloaked in a numerical package of claimed objectivity and stateed as essential to organizational results. Its outcome is predetermined. The worst part is the self-evaluation, where you are required to read the manager's mind and 'sign up' to their issues.

The Path to growth
1. Make subordinates see that you understand their perspective.
2. Show subordinates that change is important for the company.
3. Be willing to make exceptions to the rules.
4. Show subordinates how their making a change can make a difference in their own future.
5. Consider your subordinates' entire lives, understanding doing well at works takes a backseat to ding well in life more generally.
6. Be specific, don't be universal.
7. Avoid comparisons.
8. Use I-speak. Speaking this way leaves others room to express their different views. It avoids win-lose, right-wrong, who-is-objective-correct arguments when people pursuing different self-interesting clash. It implies a relationship of equality and a commitment to a fair play.
9. For your eyes only. It never goes in any file.

performance review is liked by only HR
1. HR insists on performance review to ensure themselves a secret-police-like power base they can use to secure themselves with managers. p23.
2. HR used performance review to give itself more power, but most of their stuff hadn't a clue about what people actually needed.p29
3. Deception and power plays masquerade as progress and straight talk. In som many companies, HR departments, desperate to keep their status intact, impose the performance review upon managers, who in turn, are desperate to keep their power intact. This is why the performance review lives on, even though it's hated and does so much damage. The powers have a vested interest in making sure it stays just as it is p34.

The truth of performance review
1. (on annual review), the boss wants to discuss performance improvements .. while subordinate is focused on issues such as compensations, advancement. In contrast to admitting fault and need for development, the subordinate wants to put a positive spin on .... p 38
2. Performance talk is bullshit, not even lies. With lying, you must consider the truth -as you believe and know it to be - and then make a conscious decision to say something else in the pursuit of your self-interest. In contrast, telling bullshit requires no real thoughtfulness about the truth. Your focus is on another person, and what you need them to say or do to support your agenda. If your agenda is to get high ratings on an eventual performance review, then you spin your interactions with your boss to make a positive impression, with enough adherence to the truth as to maintain credibility. If your boss's agenda is to get you to help him get ahead, he'll spend his time spinning you to get what he wants. You can see then why bullshit, not straight talk, becomes the etiquette of choice in any corporation relationship where the only opinion that is listened to is the boss's. p45 -- my comment: good point.
3. In fact, business has a particularly powerful vested interest in the appearance of objectivity. The world of work is a self-interested world where people lose credibility when they justify their actions on grounds of personal benefit to themselves. .. Everything you say becomes colored by your agenda. Maintaining credibility requires that you conceal your personal motives and insist that your actions were taken purely for the benefit of the company. p49
4. Most people think of themselves as objective; itis the other guy who isn't. In many ways, the boss who appears the most objective is like to do the most damage. Because if somebody clearly doesn't like you, you won't feel too hurt. p52
5. Performance is forced ranking, a bell-shape curve. p52
6. There's only one opinion that counts - the boss's. p57
7. Movie "Nashville, Rashomon" vividly illustrate what an individual sees, reports seeing, concludes, and pushed for can't be separated from that person's unique background, interests, skills and motivations of the moment. p60
8. Pay for performance is lies. With praise link to pay, boss have to hold back their kind words, for fear they'll be expected to back up that appreciation with money the money company doesn't have. And for employees, authentic appreciation ends up feeling like so many empty words. It produces phony posturing, inhibits straight talk, and make it hard for bossed to be genuinely appreciative of what subordinates contribute. p65
9. The performance review is simply the place where the boss comes up with a story to justify the predetermined pay. As with the"objective" performance review, it all depends on who's doing the judging and what they bring to to the reviewing table. My point is that there is to much stuff going on to suggest that pay is simply about merit and performance. It's about interpersonal politics and loyalty, abut what's important at any particular moment to any particular boss, about the department's budget. It's about ninety different variables - none of which any tow bosses will see exactly the same.

Instead, I believe discussing performance should be an option available at all times, dictated by circumstance, opportunity, need, and (most important) relationship. And notice that I said "discussing" performance, not issuing pronouncement and rendering categorical judgment. Discussion entails a two-party, give-and-take exchange of viewpoint, with expectation that both parties are going to see things differently and may or may not converge on a jointly held point of view. p37

p4 The problem boils down to one word: insecurity (although incompetence comes in a close second). Too many managers relish the authority they have - and fear they losing it. They worry they won't be able to persuade their direct reports to do things their way. So they get their self-confidence the only way they know that the current corporate structure allows - by intimidating their subordinates into silent compliance.
p6 Performance reviews instill feelings of being dominated. They send employees the message that the boss's opinion of their performance is the key determinant of pay, assignment, and career progress. Tand while that opinion pretends to be objective, it is no such thing. The overriding message is that the boss's assessment is really about whether the boss "likes" you, whether he or she feels "comfortable" with you.
The performance reive is the device that allows managers who do not understand human nature well enough to get along with people they are charged with directing. It allows managers to avoid accountability for their misdeeds, incorrect opinions, and lack of knowledge. It is the insurance policy that allows managers to operate comfortably while employees are insecure.

p7 Hierarchy is essential for clarifying jurisdictions and responsibilities, it is entirely dysfunctional in a relationship and the development of that all-too-crucial trust. It makes healthy, give-and-take conversions all but impossible between bosses and the people who report to them. This dysfunction is reinforced by the performance review, which forces the conversation between boss and subordinate into a box that undermines straight-talk interactions.

Vocabulary:
direct reports 直接下属
scotch ~ sth 阻止；挫败

[Dylan Dodson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is about why performance reviews are typically dreadful for all involved and produce the opposite effect of what they are supposed to do. Instead, he argues for performance previews.

I enjoyed and agreed with the idea of the book and his solution. However, a lot more was written about all the downsides of performance reviews than was needed. Anyone reading this book is likely already open to the idea of doing something different.

I also felt his solution could have been teased out more and given more practical examples. Less time arguing against performance reviews and more time spent writing about what to do instead would have made the book better.

Still, the idea behind the book and what to do instead makes it worth it for me.

7/10

[Ulf Sthamer · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book succeeds in it's main goal: Once you've read this you will never want to do a performance review or be judged by one ever again. There are lot's of good arguments. It's basically a rant and the focus is on removing this technique from the workplace. There are some suggestions to check regularly in with your team instead. The book would have been much better if the first part would have been more concise, and the second part - what to do instead - would have been explained more in detail. Still convinced me, and I think it's a must read if you have to give performance reviews.

[David Wen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great idea and his argument is valid especially seeing first hand how the performance review is always a BS exercise required by HR. What he really recommends is a culture change which is very hard to achieve without some sponsorship from the executive level. All in all, the ideas are good but probably could've been presented in a much shorter format.

[Amity · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF - this book is a bit unhinged. If there is any helpful information I won’t be able to get past the ranting and shouting to find it. Was hoping for a measured, researched look into performance reviews with takeaway improvements that could be implemented. However this book is just an angry diatribe that begs the question “who hurt you???”

[Nathalie Karasek · Rating 2 out of 5]

Don’t do reviews, do previews instead.... that’s what the book is about

[Phillip Klien · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great perspective on an assumed best prsctice.

[Online Eccentric Librarian · Rating 3 out of 5]

More reviews (and no fluff) on the blog http://surrealtalvi.wordpress.com/

The book is interesting and certainly author Culbert is very passionate about the subject. At times, that passion can translate into a bit of belligerence when, really, if you have bought the book he's likely already convinced you by the first page. As with most of these types of HR books, the author seems to stretch the topic as far as possible (it might have sufficed as a white paper!) and there is a lot of rhetoric and then a few examples. I'm always interested in practice rather than theory but I had no doubt that Culbert knew the subject well and had some great ideas in there for better HR evaluation and incentive practices.

In almost 15 years in HR I've seen many different performance evaluation situations:
- ranging from 1 page to 5 pages
- some that require extensive written feedback, some that require almost none
- evaluations that have all the text auto-entered for the manager when they click on a rating level in each category
- I've had managers who deliver reviews in person/on phone to all of their employees and managers who only put it in writing and send it to the employee (despite guidelines to verbally deliver)
- I've had managers who answer phone calls during the performance evaluation discussion with their employee.
- evaluations that say illegal or inappropriate things, like "because she was on medical leave for four months, I didn't promote her."
- employees who visit my office to say their manager just gave them a bad review and it's the first they've ever heard that there was a problem
- evaluations that speak glowingly of employees, then two months later the manager comes to you and says they've had it and the employee must be fired immediately
- My own manager in HR invited me out to lunch to deliver my review. Does ANYONE want to eat while getting their evaluation, even if it's all good?

So yes, there are a lot of problems out there with performance reviews. However, if you do it RIGHT, you don't have the problems above. Have the right tool (online peer evaluation for example) and train your managers well, and performance evaluations will serve all the purposes they should.

[Zoddess · Rating 1 out of 5]

I got this book in a Goodreads giveaway... and I tried so hard to read it. I work for a large corporation obsessed with the Performance Review. I hate it. I was really hoping for a comprehensive analysis of what is wrong with the system and how to fix it - something I could pass along up the corporate food chain to make this nightmare go away. But even with a personal investment, I couldn't make it through this book. In addition to being overly repetitive, this book was written by the most bitter man in the world. Considering how badly I've been screwed over by the performance review, I didn't think anyone could be more bitter than me. I was wrong.
If the content could be boiled down (lose the repetition, evaporate the bitterness), this would probably be a cool book. There is definitely a problem with the performance review, but this book is not the solution.

[Christina · Rating 4 out of 5]

I completely agree with Culbert that HR has taken over and stifles productivity within many corporations. I see this in my own company where HR dictates when employees are eligible for promotions, makes it extremely difficult for managers to let go of employees that are clearly not performing and puts up barriers to transfers and external hires that make good business sense. One of my favorite parts of the book is when the author breaks down the 360 review. Although it is not a requirement within my company, it is often pointed to as an indication of a commitment to personal development. I had always been on the fence about doing a company 360 assessment, but after considering the points in this book I am very glad that I haven’t. I think that this is a worthwhile read for any professional.

[Katharine Grubb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great, inspiring! Would love to start using the skills offered by Culbert in the workplace. Would also like a follow-up book with tales from people who have tried to put these ideas into practice at their workplaces. What resistance did they face? How did they pitch the idea to the big boss? Oh, and he's really hard on HR people, which was irritating, but worthwhile to keep reading- I tried to keep an open mind. Pleased.

[Janet McNichol · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author clearly hates people working in the HR function and comes across as pompous. I think he could have made his point in a fraction of the pages he took. He offered little on how to prepare managers to hold the performance preview discussions he recommended. I was hoping for some insights into how organizations that move away from performance reviews handle compensation and all he offered was a naive anecdote about his house keeper. Disappointing.

[Jen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I agree with the underlying premise of the book, and enjoyed his writing style. I didn't agree with every aspect of his solutions, but I do feel there's a lot of useful information here- I would tweak some of his questions and methodologies in my program. And I admit I was a wee but offended of his harsh view of HR professionals. I believe it reduces one's credibility when one lumps all of a certain category into a sweeping negative generalization. But that could just be me feeling picked on.

[Bahir · Rating 4 out of 5]

I won this in First Reads and I must say, when I first got it, I thought it seemed like an extremely boring book. I was surprised to find, though, that it was actually very interesting, with a nice touch of humor, while still staying exceptionally informational. All in all, it was a very good read, and I would recommend it to anyone!

[Bob Reed · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a person responsible for 15 reviews per year I can see the merits of this book. The book really explains the need to change our outlook on managing people and start team building. The first few chapters seem to be somewhat repetative, but I assme the authors were trying to make a point. Well worth reading if you have to reiew others.

[Megan · Rating 1 out of 5]

The title and other reviews held such promise. But this book does not fir for my type of work environment. The author seems to think that all HR is evil and out to get you, this is just not the case always.
I didn't even bother to waste my time and finish the book, maybe there were some gems in there, but I never saw any.

[Rob Purdie · Rating 5 out of 5]

samuel culbert wants to "make the world of work fit for human consumption" and so do i. read this book if you manage people or are managed by people. then work to make the changes the book suggests :)

[Noma Bruton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book started me on my journey to get rid of performance ratings. I don't agree with Dr. Culbert's scapegoating of HR, but he makes good points about the harm performance ratings does to people and a company's performance.

[Arash Narchi · Rating 1 out of 5]

While I agree with the concepts in this book and share the views. The writing is very poor, full of fluff and no valuable examples to show the great points that this book offers but fails to deliver to readers

[Beth Meyers · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author made some good points about a better relationship to have with your employees, but his writing style was incredibly off-putting. So much so that I found myself not wanting to agree with him just on principle.

[Shelley]

As an HR professional, I think this would be an interesting read.

[Margaret · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a Good Reads book giveaway for me. I could not get into this book. It was a good concept, but a very HARD read.

[Amy Kalvig · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a pretty good book. I agree with the author on many points and found it to be a nice read.

[Mary]

Actually, I didn't finish reading this book. It is useless. A total waste of my time. I am sorry i spent money on it.

[Christina]

Heard this guy on NPR yesterday and he was great. The performance review process can be such a sham but shows no signs of going away.

[Mike Beggs · Rating 4 out of 5]

Performance reviews focus on issues after the fact. A liberating switch is to provide ongoing feedback then use previews to discuss strengths and doing what needs to be done to meet company goals