When it comes to performance reviews, it may be time to scrap the numbers, new research finds.
Cornell University researchers discovered that narrative-only feedback is considered the fairest by employees and gives a clearer understanding of how to improve performance, according to a Jan. 6 release announcing the results.
For the study, which was published Dec. 22 in Academy of Management Discoveries, researchers compared responses to performance feedback given in three different formats — numerical-only, narrative-only or a combination of the two — to 1,600 employees.
“When we started this project, we thought that combined feedback might be best,” Emily Zitek, a professor in Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, said in a statement. “But what we ended up finding was that the narrative-only condition was the best in terms of fairness perceptions and preventing people from feeling negatively evaluated.”
Researchers found that employees can feel negatively evaluated and that the review was unfair when they receive even mid-range numerical ratings. Plus, employees said they aren’t sure how to improve with only numerical feedback and no context.
“If someone did only OK, they’re probably going to feel worse about it if they have numbers in their feedback than if they don’t,” Zitek said. “So if you don’t want them to feel bad, give them the information in just a narrative.”
Even when numerical rankings were paired with narrative feedback, employees saw those reviews as less fair than narrative-only reviews, according to the research.
“We guess that the presence of a numeric component in the combined feedback may have been interpreted as evaluative or accountability focused, rather than developmental. Employees may view feedback with numerical ratings as highlighting their weaknesses,” the researchers wrote.
However, the researchers note that there are complications to solely narrative-based feedback.
“We are hesitant to suggest that employers go to completely narrative-based performance reviews,” Zitek said, “because if you don’t have numbers, there can be some other disadvantages when you are trying to do things like administer bonuses or promotions.”
In those cases, compensation decisions could be left up to a manager’s discretion or to “ghost” or “shadow” rankings — background numerical rankings. However, employees could see these approaches as unfair, researchers warn, either because of perceived favoritism or a lack of transparency.
For those reasons, “it is crucial to recognize that the decision to use narrative or combined feedback formats does not have to be absolute,” researchers wrote. “Instead, one feedback format might be more effective in some scenarios than in others. For instance, in situations where feedback is directly linked to organizational outcomes like raises or bonuses, combined feedback might be more appropriate.”
