Foreword

by Peter Block

This is a foreword that I have been waiting to write. Performance appraisal has become more than a management tool. It has grown into a cultural, almost anthropological symbol of the parental, boss–subordinate relationship that is characteristic of patriarchal organizations. Appraisals are undertaken in good faith, but there is no escape from their basic nature. Their nature is that the boss takes responsibility for the development of the subordinate and exercises that responsibility through a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of the subordinate. This is the exercise of sovereignty, regardless of how lovingly it is done. It make no sense to talk of team- and partnership-oriented cultures, which the marketplace is now demanding, and still hold on to this artifact called performance appraisal.

Now, this does not mean that there is zero value in the appriasal, or that at times it has not been helpful. It has. In fact we all hold our own fatal attraction to the routine; I even made my living from appraisals.

My first assignment in my first job in 1963 was to design a performance appraisal form for fifteen hundred engineers at Esso (to become Exxon, now Exxon Mobil) Research and Engineering Company. I spent six months designing that form. I interviewed engineers, supervisors, and managers until I couldn’t stand it anymore. To appease them all, the final form had one hundred and sixty-four different ratable elements of performance. It was designed so that no one could escape unscathed.

When the form was finished and implemented, we began a series of two-day performance appraisal training programs, both to teach people about the form and to train supervisors in how to relate to people in the process. Ten years later, we were still conducting this training program. The form changed and shrank over time, became a blank sheet of paper for a while, was sometimes filled out by the employee, eventually evolved into 360-degree feedback. Regardless of the form, though, the training in how to conduct the appraisal continued unmolested.

After a time, I began to wonder why, if performance appraisal was such a vital and useful happening, did it require perpetual training. At some point I realized that the ultimate purpose of performance appraisal might be to generate gainful employment for staff people and consultants. That might have been acceptable if the appraisal process was benign and did no harm, but this is not the case. Performance appraisal does do harm and this book does a nice job of describing how.

So having begun my career as an advocate, designer, and trainer of appraisal systems, it seems only fitting that I should be a participating witness at its funeral. Perhaps being part of this wake for appraisals will be redemptive and provide forgiveness for all the people fed through the forms and training I so eagerly provided.

I must admit I will feel the loss of performance appraisal, for it has been a wonderful foil for explaining how patriarchal and demeaning institutional life can become. My favorite story, which I will now have to abandon, is to raise the question: If partnership and cooperation are goals of the workplace, does performance appraisal serve that end? I have for years publicly wondered whether, if the appraisal process is so useful, we would consider using it in our personal lives. Would we say to our spouse, significant other, or intimate friend, “Dear, it is time for your annual performance appraisal. For the sake of our relationship and the well-being of the family unit, I want you to prepare for a discussion of your strengths and weaknesses and the ways you have fallen short of your goals for the year. Also, honey, I would like for you to define some stretch goals for the coming year.” We might try this at home, but most likely only once.

As if it is not enough to suggest to a life partner that I will be appraising them, would I remind my partner or friend that I am well trained to conduct this discussion? I have been schooled to ask open-ended questions, to maintain eye contact, and to lean forward to indicate interest. And if the appraisal is designed for the development of the subordinate, why is it at the end of the discussion, I am required to say to the grateful subordinate, “That was a great discussion. There is one more thing I need from you… would you mind signing this form, just in case of possible future legal action—we need it on record that this discussion was held and that our disappointments in you were duly noted.”

Reluctant to do it at home, we still do it at work. We do it even though no one looks forward to it, and most senior managers, who have a little more choice over their fate, do not participate in this ritual. Sold as a developmental experience, I think the real function of performance appraisal and its derivatives is more about maintaining control. It is a time, once a year, when we are reminded by our boss and the institution that they own us. In the name of our development, we have another person involuntarily tell us about our growing edges, where we stand with the institution, what stretch goals we will set, and how we are going to be watched in the coming year.

If this discussion were voluntary, requested, and if the person got to choose whom they got feedback from, then the process might be justified. But the way we do it, it is fundamentally a means of social control. Some day in the distant future, archaeologists will dig up our appraisal forms as major artifacts of our work culture. So, if you stop doing appraisals after reading this book, don’t destroy the forms, bury them.

One of my favorite parts of this book is that it explodes the myth that we need appraisals for the sake of a legal defense against the claims of low-rated or fired employees. The authors state clearly that the existence of appraisals do as much harm as good in the company’s efforts to defend itself. What a relief.

When we end appraisals as we know them, we have to replace them, for they did fill a need. We all have a need to know where we stand with those we work with. We also need honest dialogue and feedback with each other to learn about ourselves. The goal is to support honest conversation about how we are doing, but do it in a way that is caring and not punitive. Appraisals as we have known them most often have money on the table as part of the discussion, and this brings a weapon into play that gets in the way. When we combine compensation with a developmental discussion, we undermine the openness and vulnerability that development requires, and all our ears can hear is the money.

Hopefully we can reach the point where we can talk about what is good for the individual and what is good for the organization without a coercive dimension to the discussion. We can create cultures where peers can be accountable to each other and bosses can be as open in hearing feedback as they are in giving it. This requires us to choose faith over fear. Faith that most people want to do well, do care about the institution, and are committed to their own learning. If some people violate our faith, then deal strongly with them as an exception, but it is no reason to create low trust practices for all that are needed for just a few.

The book you are about to read is well written and thoughtfully done. The authors’ wisdom and advice are needed in a time when the world around us is changing faster than our institutions can adapt. We are all changing our minds about what it means to be an employee. More and more people have contingent, part-time, supplemental, you-name-it jobs, so the old bondage that used to glue us to an organization is weakening. It is a good time to consider more radical changes—and this book pulls us compellingly in that direction.

Peter Block

June 2000