The appraisal interview (MAG): For some, it is expedient and important, for others it is a torture and not really valuable.
Dr. Meike Wiemann-Huegler and Stephan Richter critically questioned the tradition of the MAG in their workshop at the DIGICON24.
Stephan contributed his many years of practical experience in the field of process and software consulting in the talent management environment as a project manager and business consultant at Abacus Umantis AG. This was supplemented by the scientific perspective of Meike, who works as a researcher and lecturer at the University of St. Gallen and deals extensively with the topics of trust and motivation in organizations.
After the workshop, we asked them again about the most important aspects:
1. Stephan: What does a classic MAG look like and why do you think it's no longer up to date?
A classic MAG usually follows an annual cycle and usually includes a review of the achievement of goals, tasks, competencies as well as the definition of development goals and behavioral criteria. These are often supplemented by rankings and evaluations that result in an overall grade or assessment. However, it is no longer up-to-date for various reasons. Firstly, too many goals are often pursued, which can lead to excessive demands on employees. Secondly, the focus is often on the bonus and not on the actual performance. Thirdly, the procedure is perceived by some employees as control or coercion. In addition, topics are often discussed that date back months and have little to do with the current working day, which gives the impression of a lack of topicality and individuality. Many companies that ask us about our innovative MAG solutions complain that classic MAG is often too complicated and time-consuming, and that it often does not offer clear added value and often takes place at the wrong time.
2. Meike: What does the research say about this? What are the effects of a classic MAG?
The Gallup Engagement Index 2023, an indicator of employees' emotional engagement and attachment to their work and company, shows that few employees are truly engaged anymore, e.g. 72% of respondents say they have already quit internally ("quiet quitting"). These are alarming figures for companies and clearly show that there is an urgent need to promote employee motivation. A well-designed, appreciative conversation in which employees receive feedback can help with this.
However, not all feedback is the same. It's easy to think that feedback always has a positive effect on the leadership of those being led. But this is not the case in all cases. Studies show that people are reluctant to accept feedback or an assessment from a person whose intentions are unclear. The situation is different if we as employees have the feeling that the other person knows us and that we are important to them or we believe that they want to support us and value us. Appreciation is one of the biggest drivers of motivation and performance. That's why it's also important that the person who also has the connection to it and experiences the employees gives feedback. Scientific evidence also shows that too much pressure and anxiety should not be created in the MAG, as this reduces the concentration and development of employees in the conversation.
3. However, some companies tend to regress here: The most prominent example here is probably SAP, which has announced that it will again increasingly trend towards rankings and categorization into top performers or not. What do they think about it?
I don't think much of that. Research clearly shows that feedback in the form of rankings and ratings judges rather than coaches and thus destroys collaboration. In addition, employees feel a loss of status due to rankings or ratings in the feedback process if they are not classified in the best category. This creates a culture of ranking instead of coaching, which destroys collaboration as employees are in a competitive environment. In my opinion, the only ones who benefit from such a system are the top managers, for whom this kind of exercise of power and control activates the reward system in the brain.
4. What should companies do instead?
Our research results show that participatory, adaptive, learning-oriented and transparent/fair MAG strengthen the climate of cooperation and trust. For example, team goals with strengths-based roles are more likely to belong in a MAG than individual goals that only promote competition between employees. One concept that is a good alternative to the classic MAG is the feedforward conversation.
5. What could a feedforward conversation look like?
First of all, you should try to find out in which situations the employees felt particularly successful. After that, the reasons for this are determined. In this way, the personal success code can be deciphered and explained what contributed to the success. This includes the person's strengths, abilities, and actions. Finally, it is important to reflect on the key findings and reasons discussed earlier and relate them to the future. Together with the employees, the extent to which these aspects can be taken into account and implemented in future plans and tasks is to be analysed. In this way, it is possible to discuss directly with them how these future tasks can be made as successful as possible.
6. Stephan, do you also have an innovative alternative to the classic MAG?
I'm a big fan of the "My contribution" concept, which I've already been able to implement in customer projects. The core of "My contribution" is to concentrate on the essentials and to ask employees the question: What can you contribute to success (company/team/person)? A single question. Simple and effective. One advantage of this approach is that this question can be asked across all hierarchies. And if each person mentions even one point that they would like to improve on their post in the future, this is usually much more efficient than being given long goal lists. However, comparability and some KPIs are lost in the process. In order for this concept to be implemented in this way, however, trust is also needed, which means more focus on agility and flexible processes instead of signatures and rigid process specifications. In addition, this concept should be open to regular adaptation and freely selectable. In other words, it will only be done if the employees or managers want a conversation. In this way, an interview will only be convened if it is deemed useful by the parties.
7. Stephan, how can companies incorporate the topic of values into a MAG?
This can be illustrated very well with an example. Suppose a company considers "trust" to be one of its corporate values. One possibility is to ask specific questions about it in the MAG. For example, how the person shows "trust" towards the clientele. In my opinion, however, it would make much more sense if these values were actually lived and thus incorporated into the company's processes and into the design of MAG.
8. Meike, can such MAG also take place in a team and how could this be implemented?
Naturally. The aim of such discussions in the team is to review the achievement of goals and the processes. In such conversations, individual contributions can help clarify goals within the team and share progress. In addition, this can lead to identification and cohesion in the team. However, a critical point is to communicate criticism in front of others. Here, for example, a Code of Conduct for communicating criticism can help.
9. Thank you very much for the exciting insights. We've come to the end of the conversation: What are the most important insights you'd like to share with readers?
It is important to ensure that the conversations add value and that the topics covered are topical. In addition, MAG can be made as successful as possible through the use of innovative and scientific approaches. "Feedforward" and "My Contribution" are innovative alternatives to classic MAG. In order to be able to better respond to the individual needs of employees, MAG should be designed flexibly. Basically, however, it is important to note that everyone contributes to a successful MAG. From managers to learners, everyone has a responsibility to develop the MAG into a value-adding conversation.
Thank you very much for the interview, Dr. Meike Wiemann-Huegler and Stephan Richter
The interview was conducted by Alexandra Heubuch
Alexandra Heubuch is a business psychologist and has been working at Umantis for over 5 years. In her role as Lead Scientific Research, she cooperates with leading universities and colleges in the DACH region and supports the application of scientific findings in practice.
