The phrase ‘tick and flick’ is usually a pejorative term associated with performance management (PM) and appraisal (McLean and Reveley, 2005; Shields, 2007). For example: “[the new training program will] transform performance management from a tick and flick, once-a-year compliance activity to one that has a clear purpose and is meaningful” (APSC 2013, nd.). This reflects a common view of PM as a bureaucratic, annual event where managers and supervisors superficially assess their subordinates’ performance, through signing off on PM paperwork (tick) and then filing this paperwork until the next annual cycle (flick). Following this approach leads to agreements lacking detail, performance assessments being seen as a compliance process, and the provision of brief and meaningless feedback focused on conflict avoidance.
However, evidence from a recent study indicated that tick and flick is not necessarily a bad thing. Using data from qualitative comparative case study research undertaken in the Australian Public Service (Blackman et al., 2012; Blackman et al., 2013), we argue that where PM is seen as core business, the formal PM process is meaningful.
As expected there were participants who saw ‘tick and flick’ in pejorative terms. In these circumstances, managers had not held ongoing or effective performance conversations and the ‘tick and flick’ approach at the end of the cycle led to unmet expectations, conflict and surprises. However, those who were perceived to be effective managers held ongoing performance conversations with their employees in order to ensure role and goal clarity, organisational alignment and agreed future development or support needs. These conversations meant that the formal PM process was a ‘tick and flick’ exercise which simply confirmed feedback made throughout the year. This made undertaking the formal PM process straightforward and meaningful: employees already knew how they were performing. Thus ‘tick and flick’ approach was not problematic and was seen, by some, as aspirational.
References
Australian Public Service Commission [APSC] (2013). Performance management. Retrieved from http://www.apsc.gov.au/learn-and-develop/learning-and-development-calendar/ management-skills-programs/performance-management.
Blackman, D., Buick, F., O’Donnell, M., O’Flynn, J., and West, D. (2012). Developing high performance: Performance management in the Australian Public Service. Crawford School Research Paper No. 12-09, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 25 June, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2130232.
Blackman, D., Buick, F., O’Donnell, M., O’Flynn, J., and West, D. (2013). Strengthening the performance framework: Towards a high performing Australian Public Service. Australia and New Zealand School of Government Institute for Governance (ANZIG) Working Paper, Canberra, Australia, 13 May.
McLean, P. D. and Reveley, J. (2005). HRM at the coalface: employee responses to performance appraisal at an underground coalmine. In D. Davies, G. Fisher & R. Hughes (Eds.), Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference (pp. 1-13). Canberra, Australia: Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM).
Shields, J. (2007). Managing Employee Performance and Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
