Performance reviews and metrics

[sakibkhan22197]

Example of an abstract reasoning test, which assesses an individual’s intellect and ability to grasp new concepts.
Example of an abstract reasoning test, which assesses an individual’s intellect and ability to grasp new concepts.
Cognitive ability isn’t something you can pin down like a medical diagnosis. The layers of interpretation, cultural biases, and questionable psychometric rigor mean these tests can end up being a sophisticated-looking guessing game.

As a psychologist myself, I’m all for integrating scientific methods into recruitment policies and using tests to inform hiring decisions. However, it’s essential to apply scrutiny and ensure that these tools are proper and actually aligned with the role’s requirements. Without this careful thought, the cost isn’t just wasted time—it’s hiring the wrong people based on tools that haven’t been properly evaluated.

If you’ve ever been asked to sum up your year’s work in a single number or chart, you’ll understand the hollow feeling performance reviews often leave behind. Tools and concepts like KPIs, OKRs, the bell curve, and 360-degree feedback promise clarity and alignment but are often applied without consideration for the diversity of roles and goals within a company.

KPIs and OKRs, for instance, aim to create measurable alignment between individual contributions and organizational objectives. While helpful for tracking progress, these metrics often fail to capture the full scope of work.

Complex, collaborative efforts or creative problem-solving are difficult to quantify, yet these systems demand that they fit into neat, measurable boxes. And, of course, employees naturally focus on what’s being measured because those metrics shape expectations, even if they don’t always reflect the true value of their work.

The bell curve, on the other hand, is a shape used to categorize employee performance into tiers, assuming a normal distribution of "high," "average," and "low" performers. While this may work in specific contexts, it oversimplifies the realities of team dynamics and ignores the unique contributions individuals bring to their roles. Performance doesn’t always follow statistical norms, and forcing it can undermine morale and fairness.

Visualization of data based on the assumption that employee performance follows a normal distribution.
Visualization of data based on the assumption that employee dubai email list performance follows a normal distribution.
Finally, there’s 360-degree feedback, a method designed to provide holistic performance insights by gathering input from various perspectives. While the concept is valuable, the execution often misses the mark. Organizations frequently celebrate the fact that they are collecting comprehensive feedback without critically examining its substance or relevance.

The focus often leans too heavily on the mechanics of gathering feedback—getting input from multiple sources—without asking fundamental questions. Are the peers providing feedback truly relevant to the individual’s role? Are the questions being asked thoughtful and specific to the person’s responsibilities? Were the individual and team goals cascaded clearly in the first place?

It’s easy to ask vague, general questions and attach a Likert scale for "agree” to “disagree", but what does that actually tell you about performance? Without thoughtful design and alignment to the role, the team, and the company’s broader goals, the feedback becomes just another exercise in process, with little actionable insight to show for it.