
Accenture will get rid of annual performance reviews and rankings - duncanawoods
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2015/07/21/in-big-move-accenture-will-get-rid-of-annual-performance-reviews-and-rankings
======
tragomaskhalos
In my company, years ago, performance rating was done by your line manager
just talking to your project manager(s) to find out how you were getting on,
and the line manager would assign you a pay rise (or not) accordingly. This
was a perfectly sane and workable system.

Then the place got engulfed by this insane fad for "performance reviews",
which is idiotic on its face for a number of reasons:

1\. You request review feedback from peers - this is unworkable because if you
work with someone who is useless, and you say so in their review, your working
relationship with them becomes untenable;

2\. The process also requires "self review", which is nothing but a mechanism
for bullshitters to big themselves up. It is also time-consuming, and good
people are generally too busy to dedicate much time to it; the bullshitters
and timewasters otoh will happily dedicate days to polishing their lies and
exaggerations;

3\. In general the process massively favours those who play the performance
review system, i.e. the politicians;

4\. You are required to set "career objectives", which is almost entirely
pointless since as a tech person you are largely constrained by what jobs need
your skills at the particular moment you become available; there is little
tolerance for people sitting around idle waiting for the perfect role that
meets their desired objective.

~~~
braythwayt
> _In my company, years ago, performance rating was done by your line manager
> just talking to your project manager(s) to find out how you were getting on,
> and the line manager would assign you a pay rise (or not) accordingly. This
> was a perfectly sane and workable system._

That sounds very much like "hiring people based on having a reasonable
conversation about their experience.” It is a perfectly sane and reasonable
system, provided everyone involved is acting in good faith, has a great deal
of ability to evaluate people based on their actual contribution to the
success of the company, and nobody has any overt or internalized biases.

Without taking anything away from your company, I’m sure you will appreciate
that in many companies, this business of “assigning you a bonus based on
conversations with the project manager(s)” gets twisted into a horrible
political game where people build fiefdoms based on tit-for-tat agreements,
and where all sorts of biases come into play, e.g. the men are all “take-
charge go-getters,” while the women are all “confrontational and bossy.”

I’m saying nothing about performance evaluations being better, just that
results like you have experienced with your company are remarkably difficult
to reproduce and sustain.

My bet is that if conversation works in your company, performance evaluations
would also work. Maybe with more annoying paperwork involved, but it would
still work.

~~~
calinet6
Both systems have their downsides. The simpler system generally has fewer, and
that makes it preferable in many ways. But there could also be a different
simple system that has fewer downsides.

It's important to first think of the active system at play and its influences
on people, and second, try to improve it without disconnecting the model from
reality.

This is a hard problem, and is one of the reasons leaders and managers need
systems thinking skills above all.

~~~
jdmichal
> Both systems have their downsides. The simpler system generally has fewer,
> and that makes it preferable in many ways.

[Citation needed]

Also, I find the version with paperwork better, because that creates a
documentation trail. If someone is routinely favoring certain people or
groups, documentation makes that easy to expose. As opposed to the "word of
mouth" system where it's likely impossible.

~~~
oldmanjay
You're asking for a citation on the usefulness of parsimony as a principle,
which I find relatively funny.

~~~
calinet6
Also, looking for proof in a complex system will often lead you down the path
of least resistance (the path for which it's easiest to find supporting proof;
not necessarily the best path). So asking for proof is just evidence of a lack
of systems thinking at play.

Ability to understand your specific system and guide it is the far more
important factor.

------
swombat
It's sad and sort of amusing that most people here seem to be misunderstanding
the point of this entirely. Unfortunately, this is likely prophetic of the way
people within Accenture will misunderstand this too.

Most of the grievances in comments here at this point are not so much about
the feedback system as about the pay system. There is no mention in the
article of "pay", "compensation", "salary", "reward", or any other word
talking about the pay system. There is no indication that this is what's being
operated on. What is happening is that they're replacing a yearly feedback
process with a continuous feedback process.

That's very worthwhile, but it won't solve issues with the pay system, or with
politics, or with people "playing the game", etc. It just means that people
will have more regular feedback. That's good in and of itself, but it won't
suddenly transform the company or turn it upside down.

Now, at the same time, reading this CEO's statement, and comparing it with the
sort of stuff that was being said when I was working there, this guy seems
positively enlightened. I hope this is just one piece in a pattern of many
different things he'll be changing at Accenture. If it is, then there could be
large scale change in Accenture.

As it is, this is just one encouraging bit of change around the feedback
process. NOT a change of the pay model. NOT something that will get rid of
politics in the pay model. NOT something that will majorly change the culture.
JUST something that will encourage everyone to operate in the way that good
managers (of which there are many at Accenture) already operated.

~~~
jsingleton
To be fair the pay was actually pretty good. I think the problem with a system
like this is that it forces employees into one of two strategies with no
middle ground.

1\. Be super competitive and always aim to be ranked at the very top, to the
detriment of working on your technical skills that don't help here.

2\. See that the only winning move is not to play and ignore the ranking,
focusing instead on gaining experience and forming a long term exit plan.

I saw lots of examples of both tribes but not much in between.

------
jsingleton
The regular "laddering" process was a massive pain and a huge burden on staff
that took away from doing real work. It also had the effect of forcing the
most talented people out of the company as they tended to focus on actually
building the things the clients wanted rather than playing the ranking game.
Ranking was strongly correlated to time spent in the office rather than
achievements or output.

I don't think this will change the mindset internally although it's a positive
move. There is a big company culture of not trying to excel at anything for
fear of making a mistake and looking bad. The firm is also full of jokers who
haven't got a clue about software and don't even think it's a technology
company. Lots of politics too.

~~~
_xander
It sounds like you have experience of the firm. I'm interested in tech
consulting and was planning on applying after graduation. Would you advise
against this? Are there any firms in a similar line of work that you would
recommend? (This question is open anyone on HN who wants to chip in).

~~~
michaelt
Imagine you're running a consulting company. A client approaches you with a
project.

Like all software projects, there are big error bars on all time estimates; it
could take X hours or 0.5X hours or 2X hours, even without scope changes. With
scope changes, all bets are off. The deal you strike with the client makes
this clear - you estimate X hours, but you can bill them anything from 0.5X
hours to 2X hours.

If you assign one competent engineer to the project, they'll bill X hours.

If you assign two competent engineers to the project, they'll each bill 0.55X
hours for a total of 1.1X hours billed (the extra 0.1X is due to
communications overhead)

But if you assign one competent engineer and one incompetent engineer, the
competent engineer will bill 0.8X hours completing the project and the
incompetent engineer will bill 0.8X hours - for a total of 1.6X hours billed.

In other words, if a project has one competent engineer, adding a competent
engineer adds 0.1X to revenue but adding an incompetent engineer adds 0.6X to
revenue.

How do you suppose these incentives work out in practice?

~~~
protomyth
One other little tactic used my on-site folks is to make everyone else look
crappy (employees and contractors from other companies) except the employees
who directly affect the contract. That way the client gets rid of these
undesirables and brings in more of your people thus increasing your revenue.

Accenture played this game quite well, made for some very unfun working
environments for friends of mine. I was lucky enough to work at places that
didn't have the big contracting companies when I was doing consulting.

------
talk_about_pay
But does this actually mean faster promotion cycles?

I worked for Accenture for a bit and decided to quit when they would use
technicalities to deny promotions. As a matter of fact, I was denied
promotions for three cycles because I joined 2-3 weeks too late. Basically,
because I joined the firm 2-3 weeks after the big yearly review, I wasn't
eligible for any promotion for two years whereas if I had been given a start
date a month earlier I would have been eligible after a year.

I left and more than doubled my salary, work on newer technologies, largely in
charge of my own schedule, can work anywhere in the world, and received
promotions faster.

~~~
__abc
Where do you work now?

------
analog31
_“Employees that do best in performance management systems tend to be the
employees that are the most narcissistic and self-promoting,” said Brian
Kropp, the HR practice leader for CEB. “Those aren’t necessarily the employees
you need to be the best organization going forward.”_

Maybe I'm fooling myself and I really am narcissistic. But my feeling is that
it's not narcissism but simply a rational adaptation to the conditions. What I
do when you put a self-review form in front of me, is similar to what I do as
a musician when you put some sheet music in front of me: Play the notes and
try to make the audience happy.

~~~
kyllo
Exactly. The whole self-review thing is an exercise in "tell me what I want to
hear"

~~~
justizin
It /should/ be an opportunity to reflect on your weaknesses, I don't think
I've ever met a manager who would do anything but laugh at all-tens in a self-
review, but I have been able to keep annual review conversations short and
comfortable by expressing self-knowledge and making it clear that we both
wanted me to improve in the same ways, but also that there are simply some
areas I'm not as strong in as others, and I should be deployed as such.

~~~
analog31
In my view, the process has lost that purpose since it became a zero-sum game
for determining raises, bonuses, and even layoffs. At the same time it's also
a game for my boss, who's competing with other bosses at his level for his
raise and bonus budget. He knows that I've been a supervisor, and that I
understand the game as well as he does.

My boss accepts my all-positive self review, and then reminds me that I have
to add two negatives, because it's mandatory. I choose negatives that are
completely bland.

What it means is that dealing with my weaknesses is not part of the annual
review process. But I'm free to engage in as much introspection as I want, and
my boss is welcome to chat with me about it at any time. On the other hand, I
might choose to keep some of my weaknesses to myself. Working through my own
shortcomings is something that might be a rational choice. And there's such a
thing as too much information. ;-)

------
systemtrigger
Read the fine print. They are not getting rid of performance reviews and
rankings. They are removing the useless yearly conversation that formally
informed the employee of what they already knew.

I worked for Accenture, as well as its first incarnation Andersen Consulting,
and in my experience the reviews that really mattered were the so-called role
reviews. Roles are jobs at a client. Every role reports to a more senior
Accenture employee who assigns scores as a judgment on performance. The annual
review, held with one's career counselor, is a chat largely about the scores
assigned to one from roles in the current year. The scores from roles add up
to a number and that number is essentially the annual review.

In this policy change, Accenture is simply removing a useless impotent non-
position. It does nothing to curb the recency effect, for example, pernicious
in the role review. That said, Accenture's process is more enlightened than
most approaches to the formal review.

~~~
plonh
It sounds like the role reviews did curb recency effect,and the new system
throws that away

------
koliber
Annual reviews are too coarse of a tool to be effective. They cause stress for
employees because a year's worth of feedback gets dumped on them at once. It
is difficult to condense a year's worth of issues, praises, concerns, props,
and feedback into a one-hour meeting. Reducing people to a set of numbers
often leads to negative feelings.

Good relationships, be it professional or otherwise, are based on effective
communication. An ongoing conversation between managers and their reports is
the best way for a manager to know what is going on and be connected, and for
an employee to feel heard and in-touch. This conversation must be continuous
and embrace all aspects of a employee-manager relationship.

I've been working for over three years on a service called 15Five which is a
tool for such communication. It is neat to hear how people use this service in
their organizations as an alternative to annual reviews.

I feel there is a growing shift away from quantified annual reviews and into
more conversational feedback loops.

~~~
cmdkeen
Well there is a school of thought that says the only "new" feedback you should
be getting in your annual review is very recent feedback. Negative,
constructive of course, should be being brought up earlier in the year in
order to give you a chance to correct that behaviour - after all that is the
point of developing an individual. Traditionally this is what the 6 month, mid
period, halfway etc review is for - giving feedback and reviewing the
objectives your annual appraisal will be based on.

Being criticised by a colleague for something they've failed to bring up until
now is a sign it clearly isn't that serious. Having a manager sit on negative
feedback until the review is a sign of a very bad manager. In both cases I'd
be pushing strongly back.

~~~
koliber
Well said. What needs to be considered also is that a manager may have
different types of negative feedback. He may have major issues, which would be
strange to hold on to until the annual review. However, there may also be a
bunch of smaller pieces of criticism, which will fall under a particular
threshold and will be held back, either entirely, or until an opportunity for
a review arises. That opportunity may be a long ways away.

The trick is having constant feedback. Weekly, bi-weekly, or even monthly
review-like events allow both the employer and employee to share wins and
discuss areas of friction. Having lots of such mini-reviews allows for quicker
resolution and prevents things from boiling up.

Fantastic managers do this intuitively and do not need instruction or tools
for it.

------
davotoula
"Brain research has shown that even employees who get positive reviews
experience negative effects from the process."

Can confirm, both employees that receive good score but not excellent and
average score not good are demotivated.

Only the excellent minority is motivated.

~~~
__chrismc
As someone who has to give the news about the review outcome, I can confirm
this from my own experience as well. Pretty much only those who come out of it
as "top-tier" get any benefit, and no amount of "spin" will cushion the news
of anything lesser. Of course, this isn't helped by there being an enforced
normalisation curve on the ratings…

------
scotty79
Performance reviews and ranks exist for the sole purpose of giving employer
excuse not to give most employees more money. "It's not us, it's you."

If your employees leave you in two years max anyways, excuse or no excuse,
there's not much point having this excuse.

------
zitterbewegung
Annual performance reviews are annoying and don't make sense anymore because
we need faster feedback loops for everyone really.

~~~
twistedpair
There are various firms that use a quarterly review/bonus cycle. While great,
this fails to account for the slow moving hulks that are US corporations.
Remember, in most places you'll not get in your "Annual Goals" until
March/April, will have you mid year review done in September, and then have
your annual review due by early November (lest people's year end vacations be
a problem). How could you possibly hope for management to promulgate their
_vision_ and read a sheet of paper in 3 months or less?

Perhaps _Profit Sharing_ is the better angle? At ZoomInfo, each quarter
everyone gets a bonus based on the company profits of the quarter, distributed
~equally. If every everyone did a great job and company did well, everyone
gets a bigger bonus. Not as great for the rockstars, but it's an incentive for
everyone to work together. Of course, if the market is down, it will fail to
incentivize people working their asses off to keep the company afloat.

~~~
plonh
And since rock stars are toxic on _teams_ , this is great. Of eveeyine agrees
X is a rock star, they'd happily push for X to be their lead.

------
Rambunctious
What a few big name companies (e.g. Microsoft) are getting rid of is the
"forced bell curve fit" rankings. The core issue supposedly that team members
are loathe to help anyone else succeed as that may not benefit them in the
appraisal.

Have heard that, in the new model, your manager gets a lot more liberty in
deciding how to distribute the appraisal budget for the team instead of the
hikes simply following a company-wide rule depending on the employee's rating
tier.

~~~
notahacker
My ex-employer went the opposite direction at the beginning of this year:
moving _towards_ appraisal related pay, complete with explanations of how
management were being given special training on how to fit people to the right
overall grade and even fewer top ratings were given out to make the whole
thing cost neutral. You may be surprised to learn the process was not greeted
by enthusiastic cheers.

------
dkrich
As a former employee (I actually used to work in the office in the picture), I
have to say I am very surprised and impressed by this move. I once had a
manager on a multi year oracle and Java implementation who didn't know what a
database was. That is no exaggeration. I mean that literally. One of my most
frustrating memories was being reliant on this person for performance reviews
and staking my future on her opinion of my performance. She had no ability to
assess anybody's performance, yet miraculously found herself in the position
of reviewing many very good employees. We lost several team members as a
result (in fact my experience there in large part set the course for my own
departure).

Not saying this will fix all the problems (inept management is a reality that
exists in any organization of size) but it at least shows that top brass
understands that the current system isn't working.

------
sigzero
At my company we spend so much time on reviews it borders on the ridiculous
and everyone is pretty much of the opinion they really don't matter unless the
company wants to get rid of you at some point.

------
nitin_flanker
Yes it is better to point out the shortcoming right after completion of a
project rather than reminding about that after a whole fucking year. This will
benefit both employees and managers alike.

------
delibes
So many comments here reflecting ideas from the 2002 book "Abolishing
Performance Appraisals - Why They Backfire and What to Do Instead".

I think it's well worth a read, especially if you're implementing or in a
position to influence these sorts of processes.

Feedback is important, but once a year/half/quarter isn't really doing it. And
ideally it shouldn't be related to what you're paid, though that's harder to
convince people. It can work though, and the book provides some examples of
alternatives.

------
mcguire
Speaking as someone who has worked with Accenture people on a government
contract, Accenture is the most hellish employer I have had any kind of near-
direct experience with. Between the mandatory, unpaid social events, annual
performance reports, monthly performance reports, weekly performance reports
(which, due to scheduling, needed to be done before the month or week in
question), the "career counsellor (who, according to those who worked for
Accenture, was mind-bogglingly stupid), the Accenture manager (who made
Dilbert's pointy-haired boss look competent and effective), and the assorted
other inanities of government work, I wouldn't have lasted with them two
months.

I won't work for IBM again because I've experienced their insanity, but I know
people who were happy there; I wouldn't recommend Accenture to anyone,
literally including Hitler.

------
btd
Finally! It was very disappointing that girl that smile and had good
relationships with out senior manager had the same salary as me, even if i got
the best score in our delivery center.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Doesn't equal pay legislation mean that in practise if you got a pay rise,
assuming you're male, that any female doing what might appear in court to be
the same job has to get the same pay rise??

~~~
justizin
IANAL, but I think that's what's sticky about equal pay, or one thing.

For a given job, not all _people_ will get the same pay, and as individuals, a
particular man and a particular woman may not make the same, but across an
organization we should find some balance, there should be women who make more
than some men, etc..

I don't think anyone wants a situation where granting any individual a raise
means that everyone with similar responsibilities (no two people 'do the same
job') gets the same raise.

But as I type this, it's clear how all of this grey area can (and surely IS)
be leaned upon to maintain the status quo.

~~~
plonh
If the company does a good job codfying your contribution in a role+level,
there is no problem giving everyone in the same role+level the same pay.

------
binarymax
I remember seeing a Show HN a while back to fill the void for ongoing
performance feedback, which sounded interesting. I dug up the post and here is
the site: [http://finchreviews.com/](http://finchreviews.com/)

------
jdbaldry
There's plans for the company I work for to remove their old system of reviews
too. It was supposedly introduced to cut some chaff and instill a high
performance culture but it resulted in arbitrary performance ratings and both
unhappy employees and managers.

------
yuhong
Also bad IMO are fixed number of job positions. For factories it might make
sense, but for many other jobs... It is one of the reasons why I feel that
employment anti-discrimination laws are ineffective.

