The new continuous feedback process is ill-conceived and flawed from the start.
Some personal observations:
- A lot of feedback received by colleagues is not based on facts but opinions and written in a very casual manner. Before such a feedback process was launched, there should have been proper employee training on how to write factual unbiased feedback but none of it happened. There are a lot of well defined methods in the industry on how to give structured fact based feedback.
- The feedback game is rigged and most of the times the nominations only go to "friendly" colleagues from whom only positive feedbacks are gathered. The essence of the feedback exercise is lost. It only focus on positives and fails to identify avenues for self development and reflection.
- In case critical fact based feedback is given to a colleague then they can easily delete that feedback on SF so that it doesn't exist in the system. It defeats the whole purpose of asking for feedback and specially the critical ones.
- The whole process of performance evaluation and feedback is a scientific thoughtout process and many research papers, books and best practices have been written on Organizational Behavior and related subjects. Based on the ill-conceived manner on how this tool is designed, I strongly believe no professional subject matter expertise was put into it prior to its creation.
- Based on the highlighted flaws of this performance evaluation feedback tool, it will offer lame rationale to layoff 1-2% every year based on this flawed performance evaluation process as hinted by DAsam. It will only support groupism and favoritism and deeply hamper the employees who genuinely want to make good use of this feedback process to support theirs and others growth and development.
Not sure if they feedback evaluation process and tool is released in other countries other than Germany.