????不管是接受還是給出考評，我們每年都會碰到績效考評。如果你曾經(jīng)為此困擾、煩惱或擔(dān)憂，我想給你一點安慰：即便是負(fù)責(zé)監(jiān)督年度評審的人力資源主管都覺得它是白費力氣。

????舊金山的獎勵和贊賞咨詢公司成就者（Achievers）最近訪問了2,677人（其中雇員1,800人，人力資源經(jīng)理645人，首席執(zhí)行官232人）后，發(fā)現(xiàn)了這個令人困擾的現(xiàn)象。這家公司的客戶包括微軟（MSFT）、3M（MMM）、美國最大的藥品零售商CVS（CVS）和Levi Strauss。

????雖然幾乎所有接受調(diào)查的公司都會進(jìn)行某種形式的年度評估，以此作為主要的手段，來向雇員反饋他們的業(yè)績，但只有2%的人力資源官員認(rèn)為這種評審有實際的意義。

????此外，研究還發(fā)現(xiàn)首席執(zhí)行官腦海中的公司狀況和雇員口中所稱的實際情況完全不是一回事（什么？難道你不覺得吃驚嗎？）。比如：57%的首席執(zhí)行官深信，雇員的努力工作和貢獻(xiàn)“經(jīng)常受到贊賞”，而雇員中同意這一觀點的只有9%。

????61%的雇員歡迎當(dāng)場從老板和同事那里即時得到對他們工作的反饋，但只有24%得到過此類反饋。而54%的首席執(zhí)行官相信已經(jīng)給出了此類反饋。

????“出現(xiàn)這種差距的原因可能是因為首席執(zhí)行官總是把自己的行為投射到整個公司，”成就者公司的主席雷澤?舒勒曼說?！袄峡倐兺ǔ樽约褐苯酉聦俚墓ぷ鞅憩F(xiàn)提供頻繁的反饋，所以他們認(rèn)為整個體系中的所有人都在這么干?！?/p>

????如果連人力資源部門都找不到年度評審的任何真正價值，為何這種評估依然無處不在？部分解釋就是，由于法律的原因，公司需要一種正式和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的方法來留下書面的記載，用以記錄關(guān)于績效問題的討論。這樣，一旦遭到解雇的員工提起訴訟，公司不會無案可查。但是，隨著技術(shù)進(jìn)步，每12個月一次的評估已經(jīng)沒有必要，經(jīng)理完全可以實時跟蹤、報告同樣的信息。

????“年度評審已經(jīng)是前電子時代的遺跡了，”舒勒曼認(rèn)為?！昂艽蟪潭壬现皇怯捎趹T性才持續(xù)下來。如果你問：‘為什么這么做？’回答多半是‘因為我們一直這么做。’”他進(jìn)一步指出，更高效的反饋方式是“每天、而不是一年只有一次的指導(dǎo)談話。”

????憤青這時或許已經(jīng)準(zhǔn)確地才到了舒勒曼偏好哪種方式：他的公司出售軟件給客戶，用來試試反饋雇員的業(yè)績表現(xiàn)。盡管如此，依然有足夠的證據(jù)表明，如果沒有每日或每周的工作談話，特別是對良好表現(xiàn)的贊許，公司的最佳員工就可能會辭職。

????If you've ever been frustrated, annoyed, or otherwise perturbed by annual performance reviews -- whether giving them, getting them, or both -- here's something that may surprise you: Not even the HR people in charge of overseeing yearly appraisals really think they're worth doing.

????At least, that is one finding from a recent poll of 2,677 people (made up of 1,800 employees, 645 human resources managers, and 232 CEOs) by San Francisco-based rewards-and-recognition consulting firm Achievers, which numbers Microsoft (MSFT), 3M (MMM), CVS (CVS), and Levi Strauss among its clients.

????Although virtually all the companies surveyed use some form of annual evaluation as their chief means of giving performance feedback to employees, only 2% of HR people think these reviews accomplish anything useful.

????What's more, the study found a big disconnect between what CEOs think is going on below them and what employees say actually happens. (What? That doesn't shock you?) Consider: 57% of CEOs believe their people are "regularly recognized" for their hard work and contributions. Employees who agree: 9%.

????While 61% of employees say they would welcome immediate, on-the spot feedback from bosses and peers about how they're doing, only 24% say they get it. Meanwhile, 54% of CEOs believe they do.

????"That gap may be because CEOs are projecting, based on their own behavior," notes Achievers chairman Razor Suleman. "Chief executives usually give their own direct reports frequent feedback about their job performance, so they think everyone is doing that all down through the ranks."

????If not even the HR department sees any real value in annual reviews, why are they still so ubiquitous? Part of the answer is that, for legal reasons, companies need a formal, standardized method of creating a "paper trail" that documents discussions about performance problems, in case a terminated employee later decides to sue. Still, with the technology currently available, there's no logical reason why managers couldn't track and report the same information in real-time instead of once every 12 months.

????"The annual review is a relic of the pre-electronic past," observes Suleman. "It persists mostly out of inertia. If you ask, 'Why are you doing this?' the response you usually get is, 'Because we've always done it this way.'" A far more productive way of giving feedback, he adds, is "having coaching conversations every day, instead of once a year."

????A cynic might note -- correctly -- that Suleman naturally favors that approach: His company is in the business of selling software that clients use to give employees real-time updates on how they're doing. Nonetheless, there is plenty of evidence that, without daily or weekly conversations about their work -- especially pats on the back for a job well done -- your best people are likely to quit.