Manager or not, you will not escape it. Alongside the meetings that follow one another and the new projects that pile up on your desk, you will please make some space in your Outlook diary for the annual evaluation interview (EAE). An unmissable event at the beginning of the year and an exercise appreciated by 58% of employees according to an OpinionWay poll for Javelo published in 2022. And the others ? A “peak of stress” and “a subjective exercise” judge 41% of them. However, did you know that unlike the professional interview, the EAE is not compulsory for the company, unless a collective agreement provides for it. A format abandoned in recent years by several large boxes who preferred alternative skills assessment methods deemed to be less time-consuming and less biased. From there to advocating its pure and simple abolition there is only one step that L’Express cannot cross. But since the question has been agitating management experts for some time, we have chosen to compare the points of view of two of them. Who knows, maybe they will change your mind…
YES / It causes employee disappointment
By Jean-Marie Peretti, human resources researcher and professor at ESSEC Business School.
The first criticism is its periodicity. It is annual and, in a VICA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) context of accelerating change and transformation, this pace seems insufficient to promote agile management, strengthen the resilience of the organization and develop its antifragility. An annual meeting, at fixed times, can have unfortunate effects on the behavior of the employee, overcommitted in the months preceding the interview to obtain a positive evaluation and less committed in the following period. To overcome this secondary effect, the system can be supplemented by quarterly or even monthly reviews, but, in practice, they are rarely carried out and do not sufficiently promote innovation and permanent improvement, guarantees of operational excellence. The second criticism is its scope limited to the manager-collaborator pair. The exchange between the N and his N+1 does not guarantee that all aspects of the employee’s contribution are taken into account. The line manager only has partial information to make a reliable assessment. The risk of cognitive biases – attention bias and judgment bias – limits the employee’s confidence in the EAE. He feels that his contribution has not been properly recognized. The sophistication of the evaluation grids used and the integration of figures do not compensate for the subjectivity of the evaluation perceived by the person being evaluated. To correct this shortcoming, the organizations feel the need to increase the number of evaluators in a 360° type multilevel approach by soliciting the colleagues of the person being evaluated, his potential collaborators, the support functions concerned and also the customers through online questionnaires. line to collect relevant information, not only for a more reliable assessment but also to define improvement plans.
Another frequent reproach made to the EAE is the cost of the device in terms of time spent by both the evaluators and the evaluated. This is particularly highlighted in organizations such as auditing and consulting firms that charge for the time of their employees. A large international firm having evaluated this time at the billing rate applied, had considered the return on investment too low and decided to abandon EAEs replaced by a continuous and multi-level system to evaluate the contribution of their consultants and managers. To this operating cost is added that of its periodic revision, because the devices age and become obsolete. The criteria grids must be reviewed to be aligned with the company’s raison d’être and its social, societal and environmental commitments. This essential evolution and the widening of the evaluation criteria to be taken into account require a major effort in the training of the evaluators and in communication. Finally, the EAE system is rarely popular, both among those evaluated and among the evaluators. Admittedly, the EAE responds to the strong expectations of feedback of the employee. But the experience lived only partially meets expectations, causes the disappointment of employees, who feel that the interview was not followed by concrete actions, and leads to growing disinterest. Managers who consider that their daily exchanges make an annual meeting superfluous regret the time to devote to it and fear having to meet demands that they cannot satisfy in terms of remuneration, training or promotion, and to arouse dissatisfaction and disengagement
NO / It’s good to have a formal appointment
By Laure-Elie Vigneronconsultant at Apec.
The first usefulness is that it is a moment dedicated to oneself. The employee and his N+1 don’t always have time to do it during the year and that’s pleasant. The question of recognition is a major factor in what makes an employee stay in a company or leave it. It is a moment expected from the executives, the opportunity to recognize the work done in salary or through citations. The annual interview is a real motivational lever on which managers must work.
It is also a time when employees evaluate the performance of the past year, which is why it is important to prepare well for this interview. Indeed, we all tend to have the halo bias, everyone will remember the last two or three weeks, a recent significant event, but in reality it is a full year that must be evaluated. For the employee, it is interesting to highlight his achievements, his results over the year. And then it’s a moment that will allow us to build on the following year, to establish a relationship of trust, to co-build a roadmap. And on the manager’s side, the EAE is a great human resources tool to fully understand who he has in front of him and to be able to respond effectively to the needs of his N-1.
Finally, it’s good to have a formal meeting, that there is a writing on both sides, especially if there is a change of manager during the year. Afterwards, there must not be only this one moment in the year. The manager can consider monthly points or even a digital tool to bring up his ideas, his feedback. Another possibility: set up a 360 so that it is not only the manager who evaluates but also the N+2 or other employees. Finally, a word of advice: it must not be a monologue by the manager, the latter must first listen to what the other has to say to him, what he has to advance, the view he has had of his year, the projection he wants to have. The more the manager engages his collaborator to show him that he is there for him, the better it will be for everyone.