Exposing faults in a relationship could do more harm than good

Think first before a couples review, writes Gary Martin

HAVING an annual performance review with your boss can be as much fun as going to the dentist for root canal work.

So the thought of getting a review from your other half can be enough to leave even the most insensitive soul down in the mouth.

Yet that is exactly what some relationship counsellors suggest couples do to kickstart their relationship at the beginning of each new year – a performance review.

Annual performance reviews for couples sound reasonable and logical, especially given their potential to resolve minor grievances before they become bigger issues. We could choose to rate our partner’s communication skills, household management and level of affection. Add to that their home maintenance, financial administration, cleanliness and tidiness and, if appropriate, their parental competencies.

There is also the possibility of assessing their relationship with the in-laws, availability for leisure activities, effectiveness of their engagement with shared friends and the level of their conflict resolutions skills.

And for each review category, it might be a relatively straightforward process to make a judgment such as “exceeds expectations”, “meets expectations”, “needs more work” or “damn hopeless”.

For many couples, the real question about these exercises is not what to measure but how it might damage a perfectly good relationship.

Telling our partners they have improved their listening skills – except when the footy is on the big screen – or been too domineering when it comes to the TV remote, taken up too much wardrobe space or failed to meet obligatory breadwinner standards to fund the couple’s lifestyle will wound, leave scar tissue or fester indefinitely.

A successful relationship is more art than science and cannot be reduced to a set of ratings on disparate attributes.

Relationship competencies that might be judged in a couple’s review do not play out in isolation but in conjunction with each other.

For example, a judged deficiency in “spending quality time together” might be compensated by a partner’s advanced skills in providing “emotional support”.

Besides, too much analysis can lead to unnecessary fault-finding.

Through taking a deep dive, our partner’s performance might bring to the surface inadequacies that have not previously challenged a

relationship but, once uncovered, will. Add to that the fact couples performance reviews will fail for all the same reasons they do in the workplace.

This includes the fact many reviewers tend to focus too much on what happened in the weeks immediately prior to the exercise rather than looking across the entire 12-month period.

A couples performance review should not be taken lightly. Scrutinising a relationship and exposing its cracks and flaws can be difficult for couples to digest. While some therapists suggest these assessment exercises might benefit couples, making judgments can place some relationships on the rocks.

It should come as no surprise that relationship counsellors recommend a couple’s performance review is followed by an appointment with a therapist – probably to help put a relationship back together.

There is something quite unsettling, contrived and even disturbing about the thought of couples filling out scorecards and checking off boxes next to statements like “we spend quality time together”, “my physical needs are met” and “our relationship is a high priority for us”.

There is a simple alternative. An enduring and satisfying relationship will never come down to a periodic check-up designed to expose a partner’s fault.

A good relationship will require daily open and honest communications coupled with affection and a hefty dose of humour.

If you do decide to proceed with a couples review, ask yourself: how would you score your partner on an annual performance review, and how do you think they would rate you?