Do you split up performance reviews - One conversation about performance and then one conversation about merit and bonus? Looking to see if these actions are done at different times rather than one meeting.
Sort By:
Oldest
VP of HR in Manufacturing6 months ago
I've seen and done it both ways. At the same time makes a closer tie between performance and pay, but it can risk perpetuatings a versy transational culture: You give me this performance and I give you this pay. So HOW your managers are delivering the message is important. HAving a separate meeting can be effective, but again, the conversation with the manager on why the merit increase "is what it is", remains important.HR Strategic Partner, People + Culture Leader6 months ago
Yes, I am a big proponent of separating these conversations. I find that if pay/merit is tied in with any other conversation, it is almost impossible for an employee to focus on anything outside of it. If an employee is fixated on getting a certain number or promotion, it's unlikely they'll be in the right mindset to take in any feedback or suggestions related to their performance. I'd also recommend separating performance conversations from development conversations if you're not already doing so. Performance conversations tend to be backward looking, and can be really affected by both recency and primacy bias. While I think they can still be valuable and have their place in determining compensation and promotions, they should be completely separate from ongoing developmental/career conversations, where an employee can talk openly about their future goals and aspirations, how they want to have an impact in the organization, and how that can align with the work they're doing and the overall company vision.
Interim HR Director6 months ago
I have seen it both ways but my preference is to split performance and the pay discussion . Practically this will happen anyway because of the timing between the review and the SLT / Board sign off of the pay review . If you run them together then what you are doing is talking about performance then in the same meeting telling the employee the outcome . Clearly you are not taking into account the employees view so if you do it that way dont be suprised if the employee opts out of engaging in the conversation since they will feel powerless. And powerless = less engaged =
ideally performance reviews should be an exchange of views and data . The Manager should take into account what the employee has said prior to submitting the grade submission for sign off .
There is a separate question which is are traditional pay linked performance review useful or not ?
I very rarely come across an employee or Manager who has found the experience motivating or uplifting .
Director of HR6 months ago
Absolutely I would split them. Performance conversations are better done regularly by the manager and can take place at any time. If you need to review performance for the purposes of calculating bonuses, do it as a Leadership Team (it's quicker apart from anything else), then you'll get broader input and it gives you good evidence to present at the Bonus conversation. Bonus conversations are better done with that being the meetings specific purpose, so there's no confusion. CHRO in Travel and Hospitality6 months ago
Appreciate the various points of view. Absolutely- I should have preface year-end performance conversations. I have also seen it both ways.
VP Talent, Learning & Organisational Development in Manufacturing6 months ago
Yes, giving feedback on performance i.e. the what and the how is about achievements and development. The monetary component, on this end, depends on the overall budget available and is then linked to the actual's person's performance. So we first focus on the performance review and help the employee to put those in the next year goal setting and development plan. Then once the performance process is done and we know what the eventual budget is, we move to the financial discussion.