It is hard not to read several articles a day bemoaning the performance appraisal process, and how it should be abolished. There have been a lot of reasons given for wanting its demise. However, I have discovered the real reason.  Much like lawyers make the worst clients, and doctors make the worst patients, HR professionals make the worst appraisers.

How do I know this?

I have attended the SHRM Annual Conference for 16 straight years and spoken to hundreds of speakers.  I have served on the Green Bay Area SHRM Chapter Board and read the reviews of every session.  I have had the privilege of being on the WI SHRM State Conference Planning Committee for eight of the last ten years and have read the attendee reviews of over 500 speakers. It is embarrassing that individuals who should know how to do performance appraisal appropriately, provide such poor and inadequate feedback.

Take a gander at some of these "gems" left by attendees and imagine yourself in the shoes of the speaker(s) receiving them:

• "I hate 6:30 am classes." "Not to mention 6:30 is quite early." "Maybe have earlier in the day...I was tired and may not have retained all the material."  I understand that you are trying to maximize your recertification credits, but no one is forcing you to attend the conference, let alone an early morning or late afternoon session.  Further, how does this in any way help the speaker?
• "Room is too hot." "Room was freezing." I'm sorry that the room temperature did not meet your needs, but, again, how does that help the speaker?  How will it help him or her improve the content?  Save it for another area of the attendee survey.
• "Horrible Speakers." The session was a bit dull and boring." As a professor who gets student reviews every semester, I can get 29 out of 30 positive ratings, but the negative one is going to be the one I mull over and remember.  Unfortunately, there is nothing provided as to how and why the session was horrible.  Where is the information that could help the speaker do better? Would you like to receive this comment about you and your performance?
• He wore a suit and was quite formal (for a session by an attorney on labor law)." "Her shoes were ugly." Again, how does this help the speaker? Your taste may be different than theirs. Further, if this is where you choose to focus on in your appraisal, maybe there are other underlying areas that might be more appropriate.  Unless there is something outrageously wrong with the outfit, it might help NOT to focus on attire at all in your feedback.
• "Didn't realize the keynote and the breakout session were the same speaker."  The program was available four months in advance, and you didn't bother to read it before attending?
• Two people evaluated and gave a 100% very satisfied rating.....to a speaker who canceled at the last minute. C'mon, man.  Really?!?!?

I know many of you have prepped for and passed the certification exam with SHRM and/or HRCI.  You certainly spent some time understanding the performance management process.  You certainly know that you should focus on behaviors that employees (or speakers) have the greatest control over.  And, this is the kind of nonsense that speakers are receiving?!?!?

Hence, the number one thing you should NOT do at the SHRM Annual Conference is to give speakers bad feedback.  Praise when warranted. Be critical, but be constructive.  Help them understand what they did poorly, and how they could improve.

If you can't even do that well, given your training, please get out of the profession.  You are making the rest of us look bad.

What would happen if HR truly operated in a truly capitalistic society where everyone is a rational actor?

In such a world, there would be a plethora of choices and perfect information about which choice to make.  Needs would be addressed quickly as businesses operate to fill that vacuum at maximum profitability.  Employees will find those organizations which put together the optimal compensation package with the appropriate work/life balance.  On the other side, companies will try to maximize employment with the best combination of knowledge, skills, and abilities at the lowest wages they can.  Equilibrium will always be reached where supply meets demand.  Consumers, companies and workers will choose the option that is most appropriate to their lifestyle.  Government will not interfere and "distort" the playing field.

What would this mean for HR?

• Would nepotism disappear as it would be viewed as an inefficient way to find talent, or is it, on certain occasions, a politically expedient choice?
• Would all salaries become public knowledge, as pay secrecy leads to imperfect information
• Would negotiation and pay unfairness become a thing of the past as all parties enter the contract with perfect information?
• Would there be a need for training as firms would only hire those who had the proper qualifications and skills to do the job correctly?
• Would there be a need for safety committees or OSHA, as taking shortcuts, in the long run, would be inefficient?
• Would wellness initiatives disappear, as employees make the right choice in diet and exercise?
• Would performance appraisals be done frequently to address any problems that arise, instead of waiting to be done annually?

Unfortunately, this nirvana is extremely difficult to achieve.  Access to good information is difficult and time consuming.  Optimal choices are not always available or easy to discern.  Even with years of civil and human rights legislation, prejudices and social ills continue to pervade the workplace.  And, in the absence of profit, companies are unlikely to enter arenas such as rural mail delivery or public sector necessities as police or firefighting. 

As a result, we get wage theft.  We get industrial accidents in West, Texas and Bangladesh.

How would you see HR changing in a truly capitalistic society?

One of my favorite books is the first installment in the Deptford Trilogy by Robertson Davies called "The Fifth Business."

Davies tells the story of Dunstan Ramsay, a headmaster of a Canadian School for 45 years who has decided to retire.  A testimonial dinner is held in his honor, but he takes umbrage at the "tribute," arguing that it has trivialized his life.  He is determined to set the story straight.

What, pray tell, is the Fifth Business?

In the preface, Davies defines it as "Those roles which, being neither those of Hero nor Heroine, Confidante nor Villain, but which were nonetheless essential to bring about the Recognition or the denouement, were called the Fifth Business in drama and opera companies organized according to the old style; the player who acted these parts was often referred to as Fifth Business."

Toward the end of the novel, he further expounds on the concept when one of the characters says to Dunstan:

‘Who are you? Where do you fit into poetry and myth? Do you know who I think you are, Ramsay? I think you are Fifth Business.

‘You don’t know what that is? Well, in opera in a permanent company of the kind we keep in Europe you must have a prima donna – always a soprano, always the heroine, often a fool; and a tenor who always plays the lover to her; and then you must have a contralto, who is a rival to the soprano, or a sorceress or something; and a basso, who is the villain or the rival or whatever threatens the tenor.

‘So far, so good. But you cannot make a plot work without another man, and he is usually a baritone, and he is called in the profession Fifth Business, because he is the odd man out, the person who has no opposite of the other sex. And you must have Fifth Business because he is the one who knows the secret of the hero’s birth, or comes to the assistance of the heroine when she thinks all is lost, or keeps the hermitess in her cell, or may even be the cause of somebody’s death if that is part of the plot. The prima donna and the tenor, the contralto and the basso, get all the best music and do all the spectacular things, but you cannot manage the plot without Fifth Business! It is not spectacular, but it is a good line of work, I can tell you, and those who play it sometimes have a career that outlasts the golden voices…’

When we are involved in rating and recognizing employees, we spend a significant amount of time on the prima donna, the tenor, the contralto or the basso. However, the crucial employee is the baritone.

Can you identify the Fifth Business in your organization?

The afternoon session of Transform HR kicked off with Tim Sackett discussing "What You Wished HR Would Do."  Sackett first highlights his several trips flying on a corporate jet with his CEO; it gave him a new way of thing about things.  Some of the points noted were:

• CEOs want to see metrics that lead to a course of action
• HR pros need to take off the HR Hat, collaborate, and understand the business
• HR need to be creative as traditional HR forecasting is not effective
• HR should hire out of their comfort zone; get people that "scare the crap out of you."
• People perform at different levels, don't be afraid to treat them differently
• CEOs want to have HR develop a true talent mindset; it is the source of competitive advantage for the organization
• HR needs to treat CEOs like any other person in the organization; don't be afraid to meet with them and just talk; CEOs carry heavy stress, and this can serve as a relaxer
• HR should be prepared to have a 15 minute conversation with the CEO at any time

Kimberly Roden tackled the ever popular topic of appraisal in her session, "Performance Reviews: Why They Do More Harm Then Good."  Roden argues that humans are too complex to fit in to a simple 5-item Likert Scale.  Initative, for example, can't be categorized easily.   Appraisal, she notes, needs to be a verb, and not a noun.  It needs to be ongoing.

Roden argues that the appraisal process if fraught with error.   Managers are often subject to the halo error and sins of recency that can diminish the validity of the process.  Similarly, it is often misused, such as being a source for termination.

As an alternative, HR should go back to SMART goals.  It should be a process, not a project.  Further, managers should use technology based on goals to remove subjectivity.   People need feedback often, not just when they screw up.

Roden struck a nerve with the audience by proclaiming that raises are often based, not on budget, but on budgeting.  Given the different cycles, raises may be granted months ahead of the actual review.

In the end, how do we change the culture of review?  Can we change it like a diet, as if we are on Weight Watchers?

Coming up next is a panel on social media in the workplace - Where is it today, where is it going tomorrow?

If you are not in attendance, you may follow the conference on Twitter at #TransformHR or follow it live where it is streaming at http://transform.tlnt.com/2012/live/