Lori Goler is the head of People at Facebook. Janelle Gal.docx
- 1. Lori Goler is the head of People at Facebook. Janelle Gale is the head of HR Business Partners at Facebook. Adam Grant is a professor at Wharton, a Facebook consultant, and the author of Originals and Give and Take. ZS U ZS A N N A IL IJ IN HBR.ORG Let’s Not Kill Performance Evaluations Yet
- 2. Facebook’s experience shows why they can still be valuable. BY LORI GOLER, JANELLE GALE, AND ADAM GRANT November 2016 Harvard Business Review 91 LET’S NOT KILL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS YET tThe reality is, even when companies get rid of performance evaluations, ratings still exist. Employees just can’t see them. Ratings are done sub-jectively, behind the scenes, and without input from the people being evaluated. Performance is the value of employees’ contribu- tions to the organization over time. And that value needs to be assessed in some way. Decisions about pay and promotions have to be made. As research- ers pointed out in a recent debate in Industrial and Organizational Psychology, “Performance is always rated in some manner.” If you don’t have formal evaluations, the ratings will be hidden in a black box. At Facebook we analyzed our performance man- agement system a few years ago. We conducted fo- cus groups and a follow-up survey with more than 300 people. The feedback was clear: 87% of people wanted to keep performance ratings. Yes, performance evaluations have costs—but they have benefits, too. We decided to hang on to them for three reasons: fairness, transparency, and development. Making Things Fair
- 3. We all want performance evaluations to be fair. That isn’t always the outcome, but as more than 9,000 managers and employees reported in a global sur- vey by CEB, not having evaluations is worse. Every organization has people who are unhappy with their bonuses or disappointed that they weren’t pro- moted. But research has long shown that when the process is fair, employees are more willing to accept undesirable outcomes. A fair process exists when evaluators are credible and motivated to get it right, and employees have a voice. Without evaluations, people are left in the dark about who is gauging their contributions and how. At Facebook, to mitigate bias and do things sys- tematically, we start by having peers write evalua- tions. They share them not just with managers but also, in most cases, with one another—which reflects the company’s core values of openness and transpar- ency. Then decisions are made about performance: Managers sit together and discuss their reports face-to-face, defending and championing, debating and deliberating, and incorporating peer feedback. Here the goal is to minimize the “idiosyncratic rater effect”—also known as personal opinion. People aren’t unduly punished when individual managers are hard graders or unfairly rewarded when they’re easy graders. Next managers write the performance reviews. We have a team of analysts who examine evalua- tions for bias (after the managers’ names have been stripped away). For instance, are words like “abra- sive” used more often to describe women—and how might that be affecting their assessments, their
- 4. promotions, their pay? And last, we translate our ratings directly into compensation. Notably, this process involves a for- mula, so managers have no discretion in compen- sation decisions. It’s fair: If you excel, your bonus multiplier rises according to a predetermined equa- tion, not someone’s opinion. This focuses managers on what they can accurately assess and allows the company to manage pay using compensation he long march to the boss’s office to get evaluated—it’s a moment we all dread. Performance reviews are awkward. They’re biased. They stick us in boxes and leave us waiting far too long for feedback. It’s no surprise that by the end of 2015, at least 30 of the Fortune 500 companies had ditched performance evaluations altogether. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. 92 Harvard Business Review November 2016 expertise. It’s also a huge time-saver. When other companies eliminate performance evaluations, they still spend many hours agonizing over compensa- tion decisions. For us, time invested in performance reviews is time saved on compensation. Being Transparent People want to know where they stand, and perfor- mance evaluations offer transparency. They help employees understand how their contributions are
- 5. seen in the organization, and they make it easier for the organization to effectively recognize and reward top performance. Many companies that are abandoning perfor- mance evaluations are moving to real-time feedback systems. That is an excellent way to help people re- peat their successes and learn from their failures. But it doesn’t help them—or the organization—gauge how they’re doing overall. Long before he won the Nobel Prize in econom- ics, psychologist Daniel Kahneman worked with the Israeli army to evaluate hundreds of cadets. He found that even after they’d been rated on many specific dimensions, a global rating of overall per- formance added information. “A global rating is very good,” Kahneman says, “provided that you have gone through the process of systematically evaluating.” For example, when managers keep a journal of key perfor- mance episodes, the quality of their feedback tends to improve, and their employees often react more posi- tively to the evaluations. At Facebook we have experi- mented with various approaches to translating micro assessments into a macro performance rating, using categories such as “technical contributions,” “team contributions,” and “planning and execution” as key dimensions that contribute to the overall score. In the CEB survey mentioned earlier, people whose companies had eliminated evaluations judged their performance conversations 14% more negatively than those whose organizations still used them. (The people who had fared better under the old system were, understandably, the most miffed.) At Facebook
- 6. a focus group participant said that ratings serve as a punctuation mark, because they’re clear. Another participant said she likes “having the chance to be a unicorn.” We value outsize contributions—and those who deliver them should feel appreciated. Developing People Finally, there’s development, the third advantage of performance evaluations. In a recent HBR article, Wharton’s Peter Cappelli and HR expert Anna Tavis argue that annual reviews favor accountability over development—and that can certainly be true. But when conversations about professional growth are near-constant and untethered by ratings, people get overwhelmed. Facing a barrage of feedback, employees often struggle to figure out which infor- mation matters most and what to ignore. A compre- hensive analysis of 607 studies showed that more than a third of all feedback interventions backfired, decreasing performance instead of increasing it. Idea in Brief THE TREND Because performance evaluations are often biased and their annual cycles leave employees waiting too long for feedback, many companies are dropping these reviews. THE PROBLEM But getting rid of evaluations doesn’t eradicate bias, since managers still rate people subjectively, without formal input. And it doesn’t ensure
- 7. that employees will receive feedback when it’s most useful. ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE Companies needn’t throw out reviews altogether. They can still reap the benefits— fairness, transparency, and development—while managing the costs. This article explains how Facebook is doing that. HBR.ORG November 2016 Harvard Business Review 93 LET’S NOT KILL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS YET feedback. If you’re nervous, you’d rather find out you’re failing than not know how you’re doing at all. If we can make one general statement from neu- roscience, it’s that the brain is remarkably flexible and adaptable. Some people may react strongly to ratings, but they can learn to respond differently. At Facebook we are trying to build a culture in which people ap- proach ratings with curiosity and a learning orienta- tion. When our senior leaders receive performance evaluations, they often share the feedback with their teams, normalizing the fact that even people who con- sistently deliver strong results sometimes have lapses. Another common critique is that ratings cre- ate fixed rather than growth mindsets. It’s true that
- 8. when managers have fixed mindsets, they’re less likely to notice improvements or declines in perfor- mance (they’ve already locked people into catego- ries) and less likely to coach people. But when com- panies eliminate reviews, managers actually devote less time to performance management. The solution here is not to throw out performance ratings but to build a culture that recognizes and re- wards growth. At Facebook we don’t believe in A, B, or C players—we’re assessing a period of time, not a person. Even David Bowie released a bad album once in a while. In fact, new evidence from a large retail company reveals that performance evaluations are surprisingly variable: People have just a 33% chance of getting the same rating from one year to the next. At Facebook we’ve found that people who receive as- sessments in the bottom 10% have a 36% chance of making it into the top half within a year. We set stretch goals—superstretches, actually— which we call 50-50 goals. These are so ambitious that there’s an equal chance people will or won’t achieve them. Those who do meet them want—and deserve—to know who they are. So do those who fall short of their goals. We aim for clarity at both ends of the spectrum. Classic research suggests that people are often highly motivated when success is a coin toss. With lower odds they’re more prone to give up, and with higher odds they don’t marshal enough effort or creativity. “Democracy is the worst form of government,” Winston Churchill reminded us in 1947, “except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” The same is true for performance evalua-
- 9. tions: They’re far from perfect, but they’re also far better than the alternatives. HBR Reprint R1611G When people receive negative feedback, they often fixate on small points. Without ratings, they can spend weeks pruning a few trees while the for- est is on fire. If a manager receives multiple pieces of feedback about being late to meetings but misses the larger issue of prioritization, she might become the timeliest person to deliver mediocre results. Performance evaluations allow for an overall assess- ment that helps people prioritize. Employees learn what their key strengths are and where they should focus their development efforts. Evaluations also serve as a forcing function to make sure that tough feedback is delivered rather than swept under the rug. Trade-Offs All Around We’re not saying that performance evaluations are uniformly beneficial. We’re saying that they in- volve trade-offs, and we’ve decided to keep ours to achieve the goals of fairness, transparency, and de- velopment. Performance reviews were put in place for good reasons; discarding them entirely might be an overreaction to how they’re often executed. Critics of performance evaluations have sug- gested that ratings automatically produce a fight-or- flight response. Actually, many people have stronger reactions to not being rated. Neuroscientists have found that highly anxious people have more-intense neural reactions to uncertainty than to negative 94 Harvard Business Review November 2016
- 10. HBR.ORG Copyright 2016 Harvard Business Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Additional restrictions may apply including the use of this content as assigned course material. Please consult your institution's librarian about any restrictions that might apply under the license with your institution. For more information and teaching resources from Harvard Business Publishing including Harvard Business School Cases, eLearning products, and business simulations please visit hbsp.harvard.edu. Running head: INSERT TITLE HERE 1 INSERT TITLE HERE 4 Insert Title Here Insert Your Name Here Insert University Here Job Description Introduction Provide an introduction, and include the date for when the job description was written, the job status (whether it is exempt or nonexempt under The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
- 11. whether it is a full-time or part-time position), the position title, and the objective of the position (what the position is supposed to accomplish and how it affects other positions and the organization). Address the pay for the position. Supervision Explain to whom the person reports, and explain the supervisory responsibilities, including any direct reports and the level of supervision. Job summary Include an outline of the job responsibilities, including the essential functions like detailed tasks, skills, duties, and responsibilities. Competency Explain the competency and position requirements, including knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs). Quality and Quantity Standards Explain the minimum levels required to meet the job requirements. Education and Experience Explain the required education and experience levels needed. Time Spent Performing Tasks Explain the percentages, if used. They should be distributed to equal 100%. Physical Factors Explain the type of environment associated with job. Working Conditions Explain the shifts and any overtime requirements, as needed. Unplanned Activities Explain any other duties, as assigned. Disclaimer Insert a disclaimer here. Discuss how the job description is not designed to cover or contain a comprehensive listing of activities, duties, or responsibilities that are required of the employee.
- 12. Performance Evaluation Performance Criteria Include a minimum of four criterion (no more than six). You may refer to the job description to help you develop this. Performance Scale Utilize a performance scale, and consider merit pay Summary Write a summary about how the laws and regulations associated with the position for the affect compensation and how the two can help manage compensation. Explain how compensation can affect employee behavior in this position. References HIRING Write a Job Description That Attracts the Right Candidate by Whitney Johnson MARCH 30, 2020 WESTEND61/GETTY IMAGES Far too many organizations miss golden opportunities to bring onboard best possible talent for the tasks at hand — and those of the future. When it’s time to recruit, hire, and onboard, the most common approaches are routine and rote, prone to misjudgment and error. The process is costly and, in the end, unfruitful.
- 13. 2COPYRIGHT © 2020 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. This failure begins at the very first step: writing the job description. As international talent management expert Dorothy Dalton laments, “Copy-paste recruitment is generally business as usual in most organizations…Even if the post was last filled five years ago, the chance of anyone thinking it might have to be crafted differently are slim. Generally, the only changes I see are to inflate the qualifications.” If you think the job you’re hiring for hasn’t changed in the last five years — or even in the past year — then it’s probably just about the only thing in your organization that hasn’t. And the practice of over- inflation of job qualifications often discourages desirable candidates to apply — candidates with potential who won’t be easily bored in the role. So instead of leaning on this these approaches, learn to pinpoint what you really need from a new hire in order to properly compose and position the job description. Here are four suggestions: Know what you need now, but also envision the future. Think of the job as an s-curve, with lots of room to grow in the role at the low end of the “s” and high proficiency but little potential at the top end. In most cases, I advocate hiring someone who will onboard at the low end and enjoy an enthusiastic and extended growth experience, with a commensurate level of job engagement, satisfaction, and
- 14. productivity as they ascend the curve to reach high proficiency. Sometimes, however, you need a sharpshooter with the expertise to solve a pressing problem. You can’t wait for them to grow. The tradeoff is that they will quickly move on, either to another organization or to a new challenge in yours (if one is available for them) and you will need to hire again, hopefully for a longer tenure. Before writing the job description, think about what will best serve the organization in both the short and long term. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to contract a gig worker to solve the problem and hire an employee for longer-term growth. Understand the hiring context. Evaluate the role in the context of the team in a large organization, or in the whole organization if your workplace is on the smaller side. Filling a job is a growth opportunity for the business, not just for the individual; the best fit is found when it captures growth for both. You can better align your job openings and descriptions with what your business needs by better understanding your current roles. For example, we consulted with a company that had motivated mid-level managers who were nonetheless uncertain about opportunities for advancement. This was especially true for people who had worked in the organization for more than 10 years. As the company developed new jobs to be filled, we recommended that they survey a targeted group of individuals related to the role they were
- 15. hiring for. In the survey, they asked people to outline what they actually did versus the job description for their role. Questions included: Why do these differences exist? What has motivated or 3COPYRIGHT © 2020 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. https://dorothydalton.com/2016/02/25/why-copy-paste- recruitment- fails/?utm_source=ReviveOldPost&utm_medium=social&utm_c ampaign=ReviveOldPost https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-looking-hire-get-hired- here-some-things-consider-whitney-johnson/ https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/you-looking-hire-get-hired- here-some-things-consider-whitney-johnson/ required them to do things differently than their job description would suggest? What tasks are associated with the standard phrase “and other jobs as specified?” What challenges have they faced and overcome to be successful? How is success gauged — what are the metrics used? And, finally, how long have they been in this role? The results of this type of survey can identify roles that need to be trimmed or pruned out altogether. It can facilitate proper allocation of valuable human resources and help identify opportunities for internal movement and advancement of proven talent. You may even find you don’t need an external hire at all, or that you need to hire for something different than the vacant position. Ultimately, you will be properly informed when writing the job description if you know what current
- 16. employees are doing and what they want to be doing. The gaps will reveal themselves. Avoid limiting language. As I noted earlier, the goal of a job description is to invite applicants. To do this successfully, avoid limiting language. Gender-biased language, for example, is known to discourage possible candidates. This is perhaps especially true of women when language is overly masculine (examples include words like “outspoken,” “competitive,” and “ninja”). But it is not limited to them. Men are also discouraged by feminine language (“nurturing,” “collaborative,” or “loyal”), particularly in postings for traditionally women-dominated jobs, like nursing. Similarly, careless language can discourage minority applicants or unconventional ones such as on- rampers (how would a term like “career-oriented” sound?), gig workers seeking traditional employment (ditto), or even entry-level workers (very discouraged by the word “experienced”). If a job really doesn’t require two years of prior experience, don’t claim it does. If you’re trying to diversify your workforce (and I hope you are) then include language specifically inviting diverse interest. For example, “We are committed to diversity in our workforce.” Kristen Pressner, the global head of human resources for Roche Diagnostics, advocates that we “flip it to test” our language: If you are a man, how might your language sound to a woman? If you’re white, how might the job description read for a person of color? If you’re a driven career person, would what you’ve crafted invite an applicant who needs to work from home? Also test the language you use with a diverse
- 17. group of individuals before you post. They can help illuminate your blind spots. Think about meaning. People want to contribute, to feel energized and passionate about what they do. They want to be inspired by ideas that can help solve problems and meet needs. This doesn’t necessarily mean changing the world or addressing cosmically important issues. But it does mean believing that we are making our corner of the world happier, brighter, and safer in some small but significant way. It is critical that organizations ensure the roles they are hiring for are quality opportunities for meaningful work, personal growth, and impact. This needs to be conveyed through the job description and even into the interviewing process. For example, Chatbooks is a company that helps people create printed scrapbooks from their Instagram photos. Rather than focusing on specific skills, 4COPYRIGHT © 2020 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. https://www.topechelon.com/blog/owner-issues/gender-biased- language-in-job-descriptions/ https://diginomica.com/flip-it-to-test-it-lessons-on-battling- bias-from-roche they use words like “high-performance creativity,” “grown up,” and “optimistic” to describe their values and the kind of candidates they are seeking to employ. When you hire an individual whose values align with the purposes of your organization, it’s a win-
- 18. win. Craft the job description to invite those people to apply. When you get a job description right, you provide an opportunity for your next employee to assume market risk — to play where others in your organization aren’t, utilizing their distinctive strengths. The odds of success are much higher than if they face competitive risk, battling for turf with entrenched players in your organization. The right fit means that a new hire has room to grow; when your employees grow, so does your organization. Whitney Johnson is an executive coach, speaker, and innovation thinker recently named one of the most influential management thinkers by Thinkers50. She is the author of Build an A-Team from Harvard Business Press and the critically acclaimed Disrupt Yourself. You can download the first chapter of Build an A Team here. 5COPYRIGHT © 2020 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. https://www.amazon.com/Build-Team-Their-Strengths- Learning/dp/1633693643 https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1633698785/ref=dbs_a_de f_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2 https://uplightcreative.lpages.co/chapter-download-build-an-a- team/ Copyright 2020 Harvard Business Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Additional restrictions may apply including the use of this content as assigned course material. Please consult your institution's librarian about any restrictions that might apply
- 19. under the license with your institution. For more information and teaching resources from Harvard Business Publishing including Harvard Business School Cases, eLearning products, and business simulations please visit hbsp.harvard.edu.