Performance Appraisal

The basis for performance appraisal lies in the common vacancy assumption that for each job an assembly of tasks exists prior to and independent of the traits of specific individual employees (Miner, Reference Miner1987, Reference Miner1991). Based on this assumption, employers first identify the characteristics of the vacancy and assess potential applicants against these criteria. After having selected the best candidate for the job, the candidate's performance is often managed with competency-, task-, or behavior-based rating scales that help managers to assess and develop employees against a fixed set of criteria (Hall, Reference Hall2004). However, this approach can be criticized because employees may show excellent performances based on individual talents that may not come to the surface in the traditional method of identifying job relevant competencies or behaviors (Briscoe & Hall, Reference Briscoe and Hall1999). Assessing performance against predefined criteria strives toward uniformity, comparing employees within the same job to the same golden standard, creating a focus on employee deficits that are seen to have the largest potential for performance improvement. This approach is understandable because human beings are preprogrammed to attend to and alleviate the effects of negative events that may lead to undesirable outcomes (Taylor, Reference Taylor1991). However, although overcoming weaknesses may be a “hygiene factor” that prevents underperformance in specific job tasks, it does not easily lead to higher levels of self-efficacy and positive affect, resulting in an excellent overall performance. Moreover, a focus on fixing employees’ weaknesses may be frustrating, demoralizing, and demeaning for them because it implicitly asks them to be something they are not (Kaiser & Overfield, Reference Kaiser and Overfield2011).

In contrast to the vacancy assumption, focusing on employees’ strengths and allowing for more diversity in the way employees execute their jobs are more in line with theories that acknowledge the active role that employees play in the design of their jobs and in the negotiation of their idiosyncratic employment arrangements (Berg, Wrzesniewski, & Dutton, Reference Berg, Wrzesniewski and Dutton2010; Black & Ashford, Reference Black and Ashford1995; Rousseau, Ho, & Greenberg, Reference Rousseau, Ho and Greenberg2006). An employee who is encouraged to play to her strengths may over time become visible and renowned by colleagues and managers, possibly leading to the crafting of an idiosyncratic job (Miner, Reference Miner1987, Reference Miner1991) around her strengths, making superior job performance even more feasible.

A Strengths-Based Alternative to Performance Appraisal

In a strengths-based performance appraisal, the aim is to identify, appreciate, and develop the employee's qualities and to focus on how the employee can utilize his or her unique qualities to contribute to the company goals. This does not mean that problematic performance can no longer be addressed or that managers can only be positive, even when they do not mean it. It does however mean that an effort needs to be made to discover the unique qualities of employees and to maximize the opportunity for employees to carry out work activities in a manner that plays to their strengths. Employee deficits do not automatically need to be translated into development goals. In some cases it might be necessary to remediate deficits to the level of acceptable performance. In other cases, however, it might be smarter to accept that an employee may never be an excellent performer in one specific aspect of his or her job and to manage around those weaknesses, for instance by letting two or more colleagues with complementary strengths join forces, such that they can complement each other's unique strengths. For example, to manage the interpersonal relations among the patients in her ward, a psychiatric nurse with a strength in zest and bravery might choose to engage in outdoor activities as a strategy that plays to her strengths, allowing her colleagues to take care of other tasks better done by them (e.g., organizing therapeutic group discussions). By taking an employee's talents and strengths as the starting point for a discussion on performance improvement, required development might be framed differently by the employee. For instance, once a researcher who is affirmed in her talent for applying advanced statistical techniques comes to realize that communicating these techniques to others might be the leverage competency that will allow her to apply her talents for statistics even more effectively, she might be more motivated to invest in developing these competencies.

Although personal strengths are trait-like characteristics that are energizing to the user (Linley & Harrington, Reference Linley and Harrington2006) and that allow people to perform at their personal best (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan, & Hurling, Reference Wood, Linley, Maltby, Kashdan and Hurling2011), this does not mean that individuals are always aware of their strengths. Individual strengths might come so naturally to a person that they are often used unconsciously or might be perceived as “normal” or something that “everyone does.” In fact, many employees cannot clearly identify their own strong points without help (Buckingham & Clifton, Reference Buckingham and Clifton2001) and report not using their strengths very often at work (Buckingham, Reference Buckingham2010). Instruments like the Strengthsfinder (Rath, Reference Rath2007) and the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson & Seligman, Reference Peterson and Seligman2004) may be helpful in discovering an individual's unique strengths. Alternatively, individuals may ask others for feedback about their “best-self,” thereby composing their reflected best-self-portrait (Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy, & Quinn, Reference Roberts, Dutton, Spreitzer, Heaphy and Quinn2005). This mental representation about who one is at one's best is based on perceptions of how others view us and serves as an anchor for who we are and a guide for who we can become. Because feedback on one's best-self will encourage one to act in line with one's best-self-concept, composing a best-self-portrait might lead to extraordinary performance.

Feedforward interviews (Bouskila-Yam & Kluger, Reference Bouskila-Yam and Kluger2011) present another interesting alternative to the performance review. In a feedforward interview, employees are invited to tell about an experience at work during which they felt energized before knowing the results of their actions. By analyzing the conditions in themselves, in others, and in the organization that allowed this peak moment to happen and by comparing this with current behavior and conditions at work, the beacons for flourishing at work can be made more visible. Similar to a classic performance appraisal, the feedforward interview still includes the creation of a discrepancy between a preferred standard and the actual state of affairs as a key ingredient of performance feedback. However, the feedforward interview overcomes the problems when this feedback is given by another person who applies an external standard and external information regarding the distance from the standard (Kluger & Van Dijk, Reference Kluger and Van Dijk2010). Recalling an event that may be rare in an individual's work experience from his or her episodic memory may reveal new data that the individual never translated into a codified abstract theory of his or her more chronic behavior (semantic knowledge). This may create new insights regarding possible excellent performance and a discrepancy that is likely to motivate people to replicate and expand their best performance.

Findings from recent research support the emphasis on employee strengths and talents. For instance, a study by Meyers, van Woerkom, de Reuver, Bakk, and Oberski (Reference Meyers, van Woerkom, de Reuver, Bakk and Oberski2015) indicates that strengths provide a better starting point to build from than weaknesses. An intervention that stimulated the use of strengths led to much bigger increases in personal growth initiative compared with an intervention that stimulated development in the area of individual deficiencies. Using strengths brings about intrinsic motivation and steep learning curves (Peterson & Seligman, Reference Peterson and Seligman2004), which facilitate the intentional pursuit of growth activities. Moreover, working on strengths enhances self-efficacy, success expectations, perseverance, and resilience in coping with setbacks (Govindji & Linley, Reference Govindji and Linley2007), triggering proactive behaviors with regard to one's personal growth. Similarly, Hiemstra and Van Yperen (Reference Hiemstra and Van Yperen2015) show that strengths-based learning strategies lead to higher perceived competence and intrinsic motivation and, in turn, to more effort in professional development activities compared with deficit-based learning strategies. Moreover, employees who perceive organizational support for strengths use become more confident and engaged and as a result display higher levels of proactive behavior (Van Woerkom, Oerlemans, & Bakker, Reference Van Woerkom, Oerlemans and Bakker2015) and performance (Van Woerkom & Meyers, Reference Van Woerkom and Meyers2015) and lower levels of absenteeism (Van Woerkom, Bakker, & Nishii, Reference Van Woerkom, Bakker and Nishii2015).

Strengths-Based Performance Appraisal and Inclusion

In addition to the argument that strengths-based performance appraisals lead to better performance compared with the classic performance review, these appraisals also support the political aim to shape the workplace into a place of inclusion where all employees (old and young, healthy and disabled) can participate. It would be unjust to evaluate all these employees by the same standards and to judge them for their inadequacies. This injustice grows even starker when we consider that 83% of companies link performance appraisals to compensation decisions (Mercer, 2013, as cited in Adler et al.). Instead of expecting the diverse workforce to meet all norms that allow for comparison, there should be room for diversity in the way people go about their work. While selecting new employees, attention should be given to the ways in which the employees’ qualities could complement those of the existing team members. A software designer with Asperger's syndrome may be an excellent detector of programming errors but may be less fluent in communicating with his coworkers. A consultant may not be a great speaker to large audiences yet can be very effective in recruiting customers based on existing contacts. An older journalist may be less up-to-date with the rapid developments in social media but might possess an abundance of enthusiasm and experience that she can transfer to her younger coworkers. Diversity in the task execution is not a problem in a team where employees complement each other's qualities. Although the individual may have some flaws, the team will be strong.