Annually in my first 35 years in ministry I had spent hours preparing and delivering multiple staff performance reviews. I was shocked to learn that I may have been wasting my time. In a meta-study (a study of the studies) researchers discovered that only 30% of feedback and performance reviews actually helped (Kluger & DeNisi,1996). They discovered that 30% have no impact and 40% actually make things worse, not a very good track record. Does that mean we should drop performance reviews? No. It does mean that we can improve the performance review process by incorporating 7 neuroscience keys in our reviews.

7 Neuroscience Keys that Improve Performance Reviews

I’ve divided the 7 C’s into these two categories.

1. The person: issues that directly relate to the person who’s receiving the review and the reviewer as well.
2. The process: issues that directly relate to the process itself.

The Person

• Community: Make sure that the person receiving the review feels emotionally connected to you as much as possible. Try to build a sense of community with those you review (Ibarra, 1999).
• Coachability:Before the review, help your staff develop a coaching/learner mentality. Help them see the value of feedback and reviews. The more value they see, the more positively they will receive it (Atwater & Brett, 2005).
• Connected: Help the staff person connect the feedback she receives to how she sees herself in the future (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) and to her larger goals (Ashford et al., 2003).

The Process

• Credible: Make sure you as the supervisor are unbiased and fully informed about the staff person’s job and performance before the review (Waldman et al., 1998).
• Coupled: This is key. You must couple the review to follow up, ideally through a coaching process. Build into the process action steps to address areas that need improvement, all with a developmental rather than a punitive tone. Also, couple the process to a teaching session before the review to help staff understand the review process and how to get the best from it.
• Consistent: Make sure that the process elicits consistent feedback from all sources giving input to reviews (Ashford et al., 2003).
• Collaborative: The more collaborative the process, the more effective it will be. If possible, include in the process peers, direct reports, and supervisors. (London & Smither, 1995).

Try applying some of these ideas the next time you do a staff review and see how it helps.

If you’d like to get a copy of a self-evaluation tool I’ve used, email me here. I give it to the staff person I’m to review first and ask them to fill it out before our actual review session. After they complete it and I’ve reviewed it, then we meet for the review.

What have you discovered that has helped your reviews improve performance?

In one of my books, Brain-Savvy Leaders: the Science of Significant Ministry, I give many more leadership insights we learn from recent neuroscience findings.

Related posts:

• Staff Performance Reviews: do they help or hinder?
• 360-Degree Performance Assessments, a valuable tool