A friend on LinkedIn replied: “Amanda, this is great. And also is something the corporate world could never get behind.”

She was complaining about performance reviews.

What I shared:

“Here’s a better method I learned from Robert Fritz for performance reviews. It takes almost no time and treats both parties like adults.

List the main responsibilities of the job, could be technical, could be things like “interact with customers” and “supporting company goals”
For each you give two ratings:
Adequate/Inadequate
Getting Better/Staying the Same/Getting Worse

Adequate means adequate. It means that a grown up is doing their job well enough to meet requirements. If they are adequate and either staying the same or getting better- yay! No conversation needed.

If they are adequate but getting worse, you talk about why and what to do about it.

If they are inadequate at something, discuss why. Are they currently getting better at it, staying the same or getting worse. What do they need to do to get to adequate.”

Here’s the takeaway:

If something is obviously better, but you don’t think it will be adopted, then look for who has hidden benefits of keeping it the same.

What’s obviously better when it comes to hiring?

Hiring someone that a current team member can personally vouch for (aka an internal referral).

What’s the benefit to leadership of ignoring this?

They get to pretend that people are widgets.

But just because some people ignore the obviously better way doesn’t mean you have to.

Hit reply and let’s talk about your next job.