As with so many things, my answer to your question is... It depends.

A performance appraisal can be a positive, valuable experience, when you are being evaluated by an involved, credible manager who:

a) actually knows what you do, and in the ideal case has even done your job at some point,

b) has an interest in genuinely developing and rewarding their employee for work done over the previous year by appropriately highlighting actual things the employee has done (both positive and constructive) in a manner which contributes to the mutual good of both the employee and the organization.

Unfortunately, these days the performance evaluation process is far more likely to be a pretense, in which the employee spends a great deal of time filling out a needlessly complex and very frustrating "performance appraisal template" in which the details of the work an employee has done over the past year are painstakingly listed to show the level of commitment provided to the business.

Once that document is completed, the manager slots all the work the employee has done (along with all the other employees that manager is responsible for) into a restrictive sliding scale to adhere to the financial guidelines they have been given by senior management, in which, typically, there are a limited number of "4's" each manager is permitted to give out, and to get away with giving out a "5" the sainthood process had better have been initiated from Rome for that employee.

Because of the cost-cutting altar so many organizations are worshipping at these days, the performance appraisal process has become an empty sham, about which many employees are very cynical because it rarely delivers an accurate appraisal of the value of the employee's contribution, and it almost never offers a compensation adjustment which is truly reflective of an employee's work.

So to get back to your question, I'd LIKE to be a David Murray on the topic of performance appraisals, but based on my experience of them, I land in the Bill Sweetland camp (but without the bellowing).

I've always thought it an odd practice. Throughout my career I've always been hired based on the unique strengths I've brought to the table. Than, rather than being concerned with helping me further develop and expand those strenghts, the focus shifted to an analysis of my weaknesses.

My suspicion for this is so the organization can use it as a method for minimizing the pay raises it has awarded me every year. "Well, your management skills went up from 2.0 - 2.5 so that's a good accomplishment but we want you to really work on this for next year and try to get it up to 3.0. But I'm happy to give you a few farthings for making the modest improvement."

Of course, they spend relatively minimal time discussing my strengths which I truly love and the reason I was hired in the first place nor is the value they have delivered really counted.

"It's amazing, your score for innovation and project management increased from a 5.0 off the charts and the projects you handled last year dropped a qazillion dollers of revenue into the company coffers. The corporate cap on raises is X% but you've clearly exceeded that so I've gone to senior management and they agree you should get X+%. Keep up the great job...we made the right decision in hiring you!"

I've only had one instance in my career when something like this happened, the rest of the time the PA experience is about as much fun and inspiring as getting a tooth pulled.

My next PA in a couple of months is going to be really telling. My efforts orchestrating a new web strategy and design in '07 drove an increase of sales by 70% (about $1 billion in incremental revenue over '06) but there is a cap on raises given marketplace conditions. It will be interesting to see if my accomplishments/strengths are even mentioned or will my weaknesses be the things that are focus on to justify not getting anything this year.

Anyone want to make a bet?

So far, the prepoderance seems to side with Sweetland. Great comments, Kristen and Craig. A little horrifying, but great.

It's a shame we need evaluations. In a perfect situation, you and your boss have a working relationship that provides feedback on an as-needed basis, not once a year.

So as issues arise they are addressed at the time (i.e. "You need to work on your style rules and stay consistent") instead of a year later when the instance is a distant memory.

Unfortunately, a lot of weak managers don't address issues head-on, instead waiting for the annual review to lambast an employee. Sad but true.

I hate the annual focus on "continuous improvement." You're at the top of your game already. You have the master's degree in your field; a dozen or so Ragan and other seminars; 20 plus years experience leading and developing junior staff; you consistenly crank out meaningful, error-free work; and yet the annual evaluation still asks, "What do you plan to do in order to 'further develop' your skills in the coming year?"

I hate it because it's condescending. It's just another checkbox the evaluator has to fill. Yeah, yeah -- I'm just saying this because my annual evaluation is coming up.

Will

Most performance evaluations are necessary bullshit: "necessary" because employees deserve something in their work record every year, and "bullshit" because of all the reasons given above.

I've worked in organizations where lots of time and money were spent teaching employees what helpful things their performance evaluations were, and teaching managers how to properly administer a performance evaluation with the proper attitude, and they were STILL bullshit. I had one boss in one of these highly prepped organizations who announced to everyone who worked under him that he simply didn't give 5s. When I asked him what I would have to improve to earn a 5, he looked at me as if I were a cockroach and said, "Maybe you didn't hear me." So much for MY motivation.

There should never be a surprise on a performance evaluation. Employees should always know where they stand with the boss: what he appreciates, and why, as well as what he's unhappy about, and why, and how they can make him happier. They should know these things because the boss talks with them all the time. For an organization to operate any other way is cruel--although not unusual--punishment.

I'm thinking all this probably puts me in the Sweetland camp, too.

Hey, Will: When they ask you what you plan to do to improve your already stellar skills, just tell 'em they need to send you to Harvard or Yale (or--better yet--Oxford or the University of Paris or--best of all--any college in Hawaii) for doctorate-level training in dealing with idiots. Maybe you'll get lucky!

Okay, I can't resist just one more, and then I'll shut up. Regarding lots of bosses we've all known and haven't loved: a friend of mine occasionally threatens to take up an office collection to help his boss pay for a glass navel. Why? Because the boss' head is so far up his ass it's the only way he can see in fromt of himself.

Kristen so nailed it. I just spent 8 hours on mine, it will be glanced at and ignored, and I'll get the raise (if any) that has been planned all along and that does not reflect my contributions in the least. The discussion will be nonproductive, and it'll be a relief when it's over.

Gee Jane - for someone who "didn't miss David at all" you're very prolific today (Kidding! I love your comments!)

I absolutely howled at the glass navel story!! That is fantastic!

Good idea, Jane. Thanks! I've already put yet another Ragan seminar on my plan for 2008. Look out Jim and Steve; here I come.

Will

Y'all are making great points. The thing is, your bosses must feel the same way (and your direct reports?). And their bosses above them, and their bosses above them ......

What a universal fucking charade! Somewhere Joseph Heller is saying, "I had no idea!"

Can ANYONE report having had a review that had an iota of meaning?

I do quarrel with one point that's been made here, and that's that there should be no need for an annual performace appraisal, in a job or in a a friendship or in a marriage. There are some issues that are not appropriate for any one Tuesday but that nevertheless need to be said. This is why friends drink together sometimes, and get big things out. And it's presumably why, 100 years ago, the first annual performance appraisal was conducted. It sounds like we've regressed a long way, babies.

David, first of all, can you publish a side-by-side comparison of Bill Sweetland's self-appraisal vs. his supervisor's appraisal? I think that would be so much fun. Knowing Bill, he would be game for that. Second of all, I think we all know that the appraisal system is such an unmitigated waste of time that it's NOT worth the paper and computer systems it's written and recorded on for future use in pending litigation. Heck, not only did I write my own almost every year (my self-appraisal plus my boss's appraisal of me), I also was assigned to write several senior managers' self-appraisals FOR them. The only thing I didn't do was decide the rating (the 1-5 scale evaluation, which is what really counts).

Corporations need to do a cost-benefit analysis of how much these systems and meetings cost vs. the likelihood of future employment litigation (which is why we have these wonderful "performance appraisals"). Clothe them in noble terms all you like, call them "development opportuntities," but they're justifications - no more, no less.

Depressing as it is, I think Diane hit the nail on the head. We're coming up on them here, and it's just another thing that has to get done.
Greg