‘Tis the season for performance reviews. Many happen in a year’s closing weeks, days, or even hours. Why? Often pay increases go into effect in January, so reviews need to happen as part of that process. Or perhaps the review was supposed to happen in September or October, and now it’s time to get this off the to-do list before Christmas break.
Before opening the template document, consider these questions:
- Why the lack of enthusiasm when thinking about giving or receiving an evaluation?
- Why wait until the last minute to put it together?
- Why the tense tone going into, during, and at the close of evaluation meetings—as compared with other conversations throughout the year?
Here’s why: a performance evaluation is personal.
That’s why many rating systems use numbers instead of words. Numbers make it less personal. It’s also why feedback often consists of generic lists of traits rather than opportunities to describe the person being evaluated. And that standard form used by, and for, everyone? It exists to methodically fill in blanks, making it look complete and filled with contemplative feedback, with the potential for nothing of value to emerge. The bottom line no one dares to speak: Prevent an evaluation from being personal and it gets done with the least amount of discomfort.
Ouch. That’s harsh.
But true.
If we risked a little more, reviews might enjoy a solid reputation as valuable opportunities for personal development. And that quarterly frequency would be honored, not ignored. Both the reviewer and the recipient would equally engage, with enthusiasm. Instead we too often get one party looking down at the form and reading aloud what the other party concurrently reads silently (while actually scanning for mention of a raise)—justifying the conspicuous lack of eye contact. There’s a reason, after all, why report cards and college grades arrive in the mail or online.
A person deserves to know what he or she does well. Maybe she’ll do more of it. And a person also deserves to know what he or she doesn’t do well. The only reasonable expectation for improvement begins with specific awareness. If there is danger of performance-related action occurring, the person deserves to know. Or perhaps there have been misperceptions or miscommunications—the evaluation meeting can bring these to the surface.
The solution? Simplify.
Try using just two questions. First, what does the person do well? Second, in what ways could the person improve? Have both the reviewer and the recipient provide answers. If a team of people provides input on the evaluation, such as the board of elders, then the reviewer should provide a brief summary of only the actionable responses to both questions. As much as possible, include specific examples. Then, looking at one another, discuss changes. Keep it simple, and it will get done.
The most valuable result of a personal evaluation is not the completion of the process, it’s the outcome—does anything happen? More, better, different? These three performance changes answer the question: Why do an evaluation?
Check out our resource on Church Staff Evaluations for more on this topic.
David Staal, senior editor for Building Church Leaders and a mentor to a second grader, serves as the president of Kids Hope USA, a national non-profit organization that partners local churches with elementary schools to provide mentors for at-risk students. He also served ten years in leadership for a local church. David is the author of Lessons Kids Need to Learn (Zondervan, 2012) and Words Kids Need to Hear (Zondervan, 2008). He lives in Grand Haven, MI, with his wife Becky. His son Scott and daughter Erin attend Valparaiso University.
