You are now leaving Univest.net. Univest Corporation of Pennsylvania (together with its subsidiaries and affiliates, "Univest") is not responsible for, and expressly disclaims all liability related to, any third-party site. Univest has no control over the contents of third-party sites and accepts no responsibility for them or for any loss or damage that may arise from your use of them. If you decide to access any third party websites, you do so entirely at your own risk and subject to the terms and conditions of such websites. Univest does not endorse any third party websites, the contents of such websites or the operators of such websites.
It’s finally happening! Many organizations are beginning to have honest conversations about the adversities surrounding the annual performance review cycle. The conventional methods of performance management are inefficient, complex and create inconsistencies across the business so the process is, more often than not, perceived as unfair.
The conventional method is very time consuming and less effective when compared to some of the new trends we are seeing out there. Consider your performance management process:
How long does it take the employee to complete the self-assessment?
How long does it take the manager to complete the final review?
Ineffective, inaccurate, time consuming, unfair – these words are often associated with the annual performance review cycle. Unfortunately, many companies struggle with these and other glitches caused by conventional performance management strategies.
The first issue is that the conventional method of performance management insinuates that managers only need to speak with their employees about their performance one time per year. The negative consequences of this are endless. With such a time lapse, the employee and the manager often have two glaringly different perspectives of the individual’s performance. If I’m working all year on a project and have received no feedback…
