For supervisors and their reports, the requirement for conducting performance reviews has been an annual rite that both sides have endured at sufferance. The quality of the process and its purpose is rarely evaluated or questioned. However, this is increasingly not true as businesses are beginning to cast aside formal employee reviews in favor of less structured, more flexible evaluations.
Accenture, one of the world’s largest employers, recently announced that it would no longer require its 330,000 employees to undergo annual performance reviews. In addition, the company is also abandoning its forced ranking system in favor of a system in which workers receive regular feedback from their supervisors.
“All this terminology of rankings — forcing rankings along some distribution curve or whatever — we’re done with that,” Accenture CEO Pierre Nanterme told “We’re going to evaluate you in your role, not vis-a-vis someone else who might work in Washington, who might work in Bangalore. It’s irrelevant. It should be about you.”
This decision reflects a growing employment law trend. Six percent of Fortune 500 companies have eliminated rankings, according to the management research firm CEB. Other notable companies that have made similar changes to their performance evaluation procedures include Deloitte, Gap, Adobe, and Medtronic.
Understandably, many New York and New Jersey businesses are beginning to question if they should follow this example. Is there a happy medium between forced rankings and random performance conversations?
Why you should re-vamp your performance reviews
In lieu of total abandonment, it makes sense for employers to at least re-tool their performance review process. This is because reviews are almost always performed by supervisors with no training for the job and with no attempt at obtaining quality control over the results. The supervisors charged with the task typically judge the job performance assignment to be an unwanted, thankless task that gets in the way of the mission of making money.
The reviews are often slapped together with little or no careful or structured thought. This then results, at times, with an employee being terminated for alleged lack of performance or incompetence but whose formal reviews provide glowing (and glaring) contradictions undermining the stated reason(s) for the negative employment action. Furthermore, there are often gross discrepancies and disparate assessments among the persons conducting the reviews. For one reviewer, a 5 (out of 10) is a failing grade while the next reviewer regards this as a high mark
Things to keep in mind for performance reviews
If employee reviews are to be performed, it is very important that the employer:
Take the process seriously and devote sufficient resources to do the job “right;”
Choose the criteria that are to be the measures of performance carefully; question whether such criteria are really relevant to performance;
Train the reviewers to help them understand their role and the expectation to include attempting to achieve a more uniform application of the stated criteria;
Review the results on a preliminary basis to spot negative trends and anomalies in the scoring;
Curve the scores so that there is some consistency of the results from one reviewer to another; and
Define the purposes and consequences for the reviews, and appropriately apply the approved use(s) for the results (retention, promotion, raises).
Generally, most employers have been unwilling to devote the time and resources to these efforts. The consequence can be the assertion of an employment or discrimination claim that will be difficult to defend. Rather than being unduly exposed to such claims, the defendant-employer would be better off with no review than one that has been poorly executed.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Are Performance Reviews Becoming Passé? Five Tips for Re-tooling Your Policy
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
For supervisors and their reports, the requirement for conducting performance reviews has been an annual rite that both sides have endured at sufferance. The quality of the process and its purpose is rarely evaluated or questioned. However, this is increasingly not true as businesses are beginning to cast aside formal employee reviews in favor of less structured, more flexible evaluations.
Accenture, one of the world’s largest employers, recently announced that it would no longer require its 330,000 employees to undergo annual performance reviews. In addition, the company is also abandoning its forced ranking system in favor of a system in which workers receive regular feedback from their supervisors.
“All this terminology of rankings — forcing rankings along some distribution curve or whatever — we’re done with that,” Accenture CEO Pierre Nanterme told “We’re going to evaluate you in your role, not vis-a-vis someone else who might work in Washington, who might work in Bangalore. It’s irrelevant. It should be about you.”
This decision reflects a growing employment law trend. Six percent of Fortune 500 companies have eliminated rankings, according to the management research firm CEB. Other notable companies that have made similar changes to their performance evaluation procedures include Deloitte, Gap, Adobe, and Medtronic.
Understandably, many New York and New Jersey businesses are beginning to question if they should follow this example. Is there a happy medium between forced rankings and random performance conversations?
Why you should re-vamp your performance reviews
In lieu of total abandonment, it makes sense for employers to at least re-tool their performance review process. This is because reviews are almost always performed by supervisors with no training for the job and with no attempt at obtaining quality control over the results. The supervisors charged with the task typically judge the job performance assignment to be an unwanted, thankless task that gets in the way of the mission of making money.
The reviews are often slapped together with little or no careful or structured thought. This then results, at times, with an employee being terminated for alleged lack of performance or incompetence but whose formal reviews provide glowing (and glaring) contradictions undermining the stated reason(s) for the negative employment action. Furthermore, there are often gross discrepancies and disparate assessments among the persons conducting the reviews. For one reviewer, a 5 (out of 10) is a failing grade while the next reviewer regards this as a high mark
Things to keep in mind for performance reviews
If employee reviews are to be performed, it is very important that the employer:
Take the process seriously and devote sufficient resources to do the job “right;”
Choose the criteria that are to be the measures of performance carefully; question whether such criteria are really relevant to performance;
Train the reviewers to help them understand their role and the expectation to include attempting to achieve a more uniform application of the stated criteria;
Review the results on a preliminary basis to spot negative trends and anomalies in the scoring;
Curve the scores so that there is some consistency of the results from one reviewer to another; and
Define the purposes and consequences for the reviews, and appropriately apply the approved use(s) for the results (retention, promotion, raises).
Generally, most employers have been unwilling to devote the time and resources to these efforts. The consequence can be the assertion of an employment or discrimination claim that will be difficult to defend. Rather than being unduly exposed to such claims, the defendant-employer would be better off with no review than one that has been poorly executed.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
