Towards continuous evaluation?
When we think of a leader, we usually imagine someone pursuing a singular vision, someone who, like Martin Luther King, “had a dream.” As a result, we often consider having a vision as a trait reserved for a few geniuses, like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, and therefore beyond our reach.
Yet, having a vision is actually a very simple concept that anyone can develop. Our vision is simply our idea of our place in the world and society. It answers questions like: Who do I want to be? What do I want to do? What do I want to contribute? And sometimes, with whom?
Developing a vision is not about setting a goal and mapping out the steps to achieve it. Our vision corresponds to the image we have of ourselves and the meaning we assign to our actions. Without a vision, we won’t be engaged and we won’t succeed in engaging others. For a leader, developing and communicating a vision is crucial. It gives meaning to employees’ work, especially in the face of rapid and constant change.
Developing your vision
Annual performance reviews are a process present in most companies. However, recently, several large corporations such as Deloitte, Accenture, and General Electric have decided to abandon their traditional evaluation systems. According to Accenture CEO Pierre Nanterme, these systems offer little value and, on the contrary, consume a lot of time and energy each year without actually helping people transform and grow. Yet, that is their primary purpose, let’s remember—not just to determine whether someone will receive a raise. This doesn’t mean eliminating evaluation systems entirely. Pierre Nanterme stated, “We are going to remove about 90% of what we used to do.” The goal is to move toward more frequent, real-time feedback, allowing everyone to know where they stand continuously. The challenge lies in implementing it effectively.
1. Annual surveys
The Global People Survey (GPS) is now being questioned for two main reasons. First, it is a very heavy process that, while providing a wealth of data, graphs, and charts, is complicated to transform into actionable plans. Moreover, the information quickly becomes outdated. GPS results often arrive nearly six months after the evaluation period in some departments, during which circumstances have likely changed, making the data less relevant.
However, measuring workplace climate remains necessary. The talent market has evolved significantly, and more people are seeking new opportunities in startups. If employees feel that their skills and experiences are not adequately recognized due to a lack of feedback, they are likely to look for recognition elsewhere.
So what can replace the GPS? Several promising startups, such as Flashbrand and Supermood, have developed tools for regular feedback and reporting. Yet, the frequency of feedback must be carefully managed. With social media, people increasingly feel “on stage,” constantly in front of an audience they need to please. For some, this can inhibit risk-taking. But it can also motivate them to prove themselves. For leaders, accustomed to constant evaluation by clients, colleagues, partners, and even the stock market, regular feedback can only be beneficial.
2. Feedback vs. evaluation
Most people are interested in growth and improvement. The popularity of apps like Rypple, later acquired by Salesforce, demonstrates this by allowing members of an organization to give and receive feedback. “You simply ask, ‘How am I performing in this area?’ and wait for responses,” explains Daniel Debow, co-founder of Rypple. Only the person who asks sees the responses, which are given anonymously, removing the pressure that the feedback might reach a manager. Debow also noted that feedback tends to be honest and therefore useful: “With confidentiality assured, people don’t worry that criticism could harm their colleagues.”
In companies where I have coached, clients were sometimes reluctant to receive 360° feedback for fear of being judged. But once confidentiality was assured and the feedback distinguished from formal evaluation, it became a powerful tool for personal transformation and growth.
To maximize the benefits of feedback—whether peer-to-peer or with a coach—we must clearly differentiate it from evaluation. Evaluation determines whether someone is “performing” or “not performing” in a domain, whereas feedback gives a clearer view of strengths and weaknesses and offers actionable guidance for self-improvement.
3. Self-evaluation
Self-evaluation is not simple and can even be counterproductive, as we are often too lenient or too harsh on ourselves. Comparing our self-assessment with others’ perspectives can help, making it a useful exercise with a coach. If annual evaluations are still in place, self-evaluation can also prepare us for those reviews.
A first tip to check honesty: if we attribute most failures to external factors, we may be avoiding our own responsibility. Paradoxically, it’s essential to include what we don’t know or see about ourselves. On complex projects, we may not grasp all implications, while someone else—like a manager or coach—can offer a broader perspective.
Beyond formal evaluations, we can self-assess daily by asking: Am I being effective? How can I improve? Are my habits or behaviors counterproductive? Am I modeling what I expect from others? Since Socrates, the message remains clear: know yourself to grow and progress.
4. Evaluation 3.0
Customer expectations have never been higher. If we fail to deliver, negative reviews are inevitable. Today, we constantly evaluate Uber drivers, Airbnb hosts, restaurants, delivery services, etc.—and they evaluate us in return.
Continuous evaluation is also extending to the workplace. At Google, employees are constantly evaluated by supervisors and peers; these scores influence bonuses and career progression.
New digital tools and startups allow us to assess coaches, training programs, and company culture. However, these tools are still in their infancy, and challenges remain. Scores depend heavily on individual criteria, so two people may rate the same service or colleague very differently. A study of 4,000 managers rated by multiple evaluators found that 62% of the variance in scores was due to differences in perception.
Deloitte suggests a solution: focus on what you want to do with the person being evaluated (e.g., keep them on the team, assign a similar project) rather than subjective opinions about them.
As digital evaluation tools grow, they will become more effective. We need to start thinking about how to use them and the benefits they can bring to stay at the top.