Death to the traditional performance review.

I was surprised to learn that 'performance reviews' are met with the same eye-roll in the real world as they were in pro sport.

Aside from the usual complaints, one of the things that created major disillusionment with the process (and the leadership in general) was that it simply became an opportunity for the coaches to justify their decisions on the hierarchy they created.

In the case of a frustrated 'under-performer', they would walk into the meeting with the coach basically shaking their head and tutting at them. The coach would then cherry-pick evidence (stats in our case) that confirmed why the player was in their lowly position, and gloss over the evidence that suggested otherwise. It really wasn't ran with the intention of helping the player lift their impact, it was more there to beat the players hope into submission so they would simply accept the limited role/minutes they were given.

In direct contrast, the star player would walk open the door and be met with a shower of applause, smiles, high-fives, and champagne-popping. They would light up a cigar while telling jokes and confirming to each other why they were so amazing. Stats would hardly get brought up, and all evidence that suggested room for improvement would be firmly swept under the rug. The meeting would generally end with a teary-eyed coach telling the player how proud he was of him, and how he wished that was his son. (This example may be slightly exaggerated, but you understand the essence).

These review processes were never really about the players or the team. They were designed to rub the coach's ego and give them the justification to keep the status quo as is.

In other words, MFs are more concerned with looking good rather than being good. And unfortunately, I have seen something eerily similar in the real world.

Good review processes are born from the principle of getting the most out of what you already have. They assume that the current crop of personnel is good enough, they passed the talent test during the recruitment process. People who aren't performing to their capability haven't just touched the basketball from Space Jam and lost their talent. Instead of kicking them in the ribs while they are down, it would be more effective to see if there was a way to get more out of them. Do we understand the person's innate strengths? Are we putting them in a position to use those strengths? Are we able to support them in other areas so they can meet the standard? Are there non-work-related issues that are having an influence?

I'm not suggesting that some people just aren't up to it, nor do I think that the pace and direction of the group should be dictated by the slowest member. But for the review process to be effective the leadership has to 1) be a shining light of exceeding a coherent and public standard, and 2) give appropriate effort to help group members meet that standard. And the current nature of many performance reviews doesn't seem to do any of this.