You Can’t Effectively Coach and Evaluate Simultaneously

The Benefits of Splitting Roles in Performance Appraisal: Insights from Herb Meyer's Landmark Research

In the world of performance management, few concepts have been as influential and enduring as the idea of "split roles" in performance appraisal, introduced by Herb Meyer in the Harvard Business Review. Meyer's research, published in the July-August issue of 1970, challenged the traditional approach to performance appraisals, which often combined the dual responsibilities of evaluation and development in a single, often contentious, meeting. By proposing a separation of these roles, Meyer provided a pathway for organizations to create more effective and less adversarial appraisal processes—ideas that remain highly relevant in today's workplace.

The Problem: Conflicting Roles in Performance Appraisal

At the heart of Meyer's research was the observation that managers, when conducting performance appraisals, are often asked to wear two conflicting hats: that of a judge and that of a coach. As a judge, the manager is expected to objectively assess an employee's past performance against established benchmarks, often determining whether the employee receives a raise, a promotion, or other rewards—or conversely, whether they face negative consequences. On the other hand, as a coach, the manager is tasked with guiding the employee’s future development, providing constructive feedback, and helping them improve their skills and performance.

Meyer argued that these two roles are inherently contradictory. The evaluative role requires a degree of critical judgment that can strain the relationship between manager and employee, especially if the appraisal is negative. This can create an environment where employees become defensive, focusing more on justifying past actions rather than openly discussing areas for improvement. The result is often a stilted, ineffective conversation where genuine development takes a backseat to the more immediate concerns of judgment and potential consequences.

The Solution: Splitting the Roles

To resolve this conflict, Meyer proposed a radical but straightforward solution: split the roles of judge and coach into two distinct processes. By separating the evaluative aspects of the appraisal from the developmental ones, Meyer suggested that organizations could achieve better outcomes in both areas.

The Evaluative Role

In the first of these split roles, the manager acts as a judge, focusing solely on assessing the employee’s performance against predefined standards. This process is formal and objective, designed to measure how well the employee has met their goals, adhered to company policies, and contributed to the organization's success. The outcome of this evaluation typically influences decisions about compensation, promotions, and other rewards or sanctions.

Meyer recommended that this evaluative meeting be treated as a stand-alone event, where the discussion is centered purely on past performance. By doing so, both the manager and the employee can approach this meeting with a clear understanding that the focus is on factual, performance-related outcomes rather than personal development.

The Developmental Role

The second role is that of a coach, which Meyer argued should be addressed in a separate meeting. Here, the focus is entirely on the employee’s future development. The manager provides guidance on how the employee can improve, offering constructive feedback, identifying areas for growth, and setting development goals. Because this conversation is decoupled from the formal evaluation, employees are more likely to be open to feedback, seeing it as an opportunity for growth rather than a critique tied to potential rewards or penalties.

Meyer believed that separating these discussions would foster a more honest and productive dialogue between managers and employees. Employees would be less defensive and more receptive to feedback, and managers could focus on genuinely helping their team members develop, rather than being distracted by the need to also judge them.

The Benefits of Role Separation

By advocating for the separation of evaluative and developmental roles, Meyer highlighted several key benefits:

1. Reduced Defensiveness: Employees are less likely to feel attacked or judged when developmental feedback is given in a context separate from their performance evaluation. This can lead to more open and honest discussions about areas for improvement.

2. Clearer Focus: Each meeting has a distinct purpose, allowing both the manager and the employee to concentrate fully on the task at hand. The evaluation meeting is about assessing past performance, while the development meeting is about planning for the future.

3. Improved Relationships: Splitting these roles can help preserve and even enhance the relationship between managers and employees. When employees know that their development is a separate, ongoing process, they may feel more supported and valued.

4. Better Outcomes: Ultimately, this approach can lead to more accurate evaluations and more effective development plans, benefiting both the individual and the organization.

The Lasting Impact of Meyer's Concept

While most organizations have not adopted Meyer's split roles approach, his research has had a lasting impact on performance management practices. Over the decades, many smart companies have recognized the value of separating evaluation from development. This has led to innovations such as continuous feedback systems, where regular coaching conversations are held separately from annual performance reviews. Additionally, some organizations have moved away from linking appraisals directly to compensation decisions, further reducing the potential for conflict and enhancing the focus on development. Similarly, external coaches or assessors are often used in the talent development process so that these processes can be separate and effective.

Today, as organizations strive to create more dynamic and supportive environments, Meyer's insights remain a valuable guide. By understanding and applying the principle of split roles, companies can foster more productive, positive interactions between managers and employees, leading to better performance, stronger relationships, and greater overall success.