I’m not much on employee reviews, not because reviews in and of themselves are “bad.” Rather, reviews seem so subjective and one-sided and in some cases, oriented toward punishment. No matter if an employee is asked (required) to fill out a self-review, the only words in the review that matter are what the boss writes. I’ve talked with many team members who, when offered the chance to write a response to their annual review, refuse to do so because they say, “No, it works against me. I know how that works. If I disagree I sound defensive.” When they don’t add anything verbally or written, has there really been a healthy exchange of feedback?

Recently, a property management company announced to me they were changing from annual reviews based on time of hire and going to an annual review process to be completed by the end of the first quarter. All reviews will result in ratings of 0-4 with the majority of employees being rated a 2, meaning they would receive no more than a 2% increase. Accordingly, there would be only rare instances of someone achieving a rating of 3 and no one would ever be good enough to receive the superstar rating of 4. One may achieve a 3 or 4 on one area (and the very lengthy self-review itself must be completed and turned into one’s boss a full week or two prior to the scheduled review date) although that will not change the overall rating. It will still be a 2. So, what is the point? If no one in the organization will ever receive a 3% raise, let alone a 4% rating, and one is pretty much guaranteed the 2%, I ask, “Where is the incentive?”

A maintenance tech making $16.00 per hour who performs his job moderately or even mediocre receives a 2% raise which he knowingly accepts as a $.32 increase. I want to know how that motivates him to do more, create another way of doing something to streamline a process or save money for the company. A leasing consultant who makes $12-13.00 per hour receiving less than a quarter per hour raise is likely not to close any more leases than the year prior. At least this is what I am hearing from people on the front lines. Even for those who not motivated by money, a 2% increase is hardly enough to keep them “in the game” – they will eventually go where the pay is higher. Does this kind of policy hinder our industry when looking for talent? Is this part of the problem in finding good maintenance techs?

An HR Director lamented that bosses are sometimes very late in completing annual reviews at hire date of their direct reports and that it will be better because all reviews will be done by March 31 every year. No more retroactive pay increases. No more extra accounting issues. She knows this will work and be wonderful because it worked in her last company where managers were doling out 50-100 reviews and raises were received “on time.” However, does churning out 100 reviews at one time, and mechanically ordering a minimum 1-2% hourly increase without really looking at individual performances, mean anything? You tell me.