Check out the short video below to learn more about The Crowdsourced Performance Review (here on Amazon). I’m looking forward to digging in and sharing more about the topics in the book!
Forty-five percent of human resources (HR) leaders don’t think annual performance reviews are an accurate appraisal for employees’ work. And 42 percent don’t think employees are rewarded fairly for their job performance. (source)
Questions I have with this direction:
When all crowdsourced information is public won’t all information be positive? No one will put bad info because their name is attached. Also, since it is based on recognition events (again 100% positive information – no one is recognized for doing something wrong or poorly) – It seems that it will ALWAYS skew toward positive data and not have any negative information. This would create a biased view of performance. In addition, employees who may know they are going to get a bad review could canvass their colleagues and have them stuff the ballot box so to speak with recognition events counteracting the info from the review.
Seems like you open yourself to more problems than you solve.
I’m curious about this, too. While it would solve the problem of a manager who’s “out to get you,” it seems like it could just exchange it for the problem of reviews by popularity contest. Not many of my colleagues actually know the details of what I do–certainly not as well as my manager does. I’m all for a more holistic approach to performance reviews, but I’d feel pretty uncomfortable with a public judgement by all my peers.
I agree with the other comments. Crowdsourced performance reviews seems to be more gimic than substance. I am looking at conducting peer reviews (with no names for reviewers) as a way of evaluating teams/departments, but not individuals; and they will not be linked to annual reviews.