While having a chat with a friend recently, we appraised some of the people we worked with in various institutions. Throughout the years, the colleagues who left their work and stayed seemed to be arbitrary, not as a result of any hard or soft skills. We agreed that it was partly because the performance appraisal system we had was wrongly understood by many of the managers of the companies.

For those managers, ideas for improvement needed to wait until the day of appraisal, which is held once or twice annually, and which depended on employees status. It was a completely top-down process. As the appraisal’s result was also tied to annual salary increments, it used to be highly emotionally charged. A minor issue that could have been straightened out immediately awaits the end of an appraisal period. Concerns to appraise the appraisal system itself had been brushed off by the higher management.

When it came to an exceptional colleague at our company’s big plant operation, it was still problematic. He was Danish. As admitted by all, he was a workaholic with a hands-on engagement in his field. In the performance appraisal of his reports, it was merely a formality. And yet, the appraisal systems never recognised that his working culture and process could be expanded outside of his department. The whole idea of appraisals was to identify and adopt best practices.

The whole phenomenon is reminiscent of the story of Roy Riegels, who became famous by running the wrong way. Playing centre for the University of California at a 1929 game, he took off in the right direction upon recovering the ball, but after spinning away from tacklers, he turned and ran dozens of yards toward his own goal line before a teammate stopped him. Riegels was dubbed ”Wrong Way” after that point, but in an inspiring turn of events, he is noted as an example of overcoming setbacks. The appraisal system at most of the companies I worked at could have used such an overhaul.