I used to work for a company where they implement a performance based assessment and there are quantitative targets required to be met before being assessed between the scale of 1 to 5 (with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best). For each of these quantitative targets, a certain weightage is assigned and the score varies from 0 - 5.0 (Yes, it is possible to get 0.23).
Anyway, at the beginning of that particular financial year, employees of the same ranking/grade are asked to group together to set the weightage to put for each of these KPIs target. This apparently is meant to facilitate ease of comparison for the bosses and HR. The weightage, though agreed by all employees within the same grade, however will be moderated by the head of the department. There is no negotiation involved if the target set by the head is unrealistic. The most we can do is to appeal and hopefully the head changes the weightage.
But you know what is the problem with this kind of standardised assessment? People are assigned with different type of work with its own intricacies and clients with different requirements. Also, your immediate superior, who is in charge to assess your performance, may set high requirements and he/she only compares amongst those within his/her team.
So if there are only 2-3 other employees of similar ranking with you in your team and all performed well (by comparison with the rest of the company), your supervisor may be compelled to rank each of you differently from the best to the worst (though the idea of such comparison are done by your supervisor's boss i.e. the head of the department and it is across the entire department). Meanwhile, in other teams, the supervisors are perhaps lax or set lower requirements therefore ended up giving very good assessments to comparatively "moderate" performers. What will happen to the more conservatively evaluated employees by their I-have-very-high-standards supervisors?
Yes, you guess it right. Your team mates or you will naturally rank below the "moderate" performers.
And that my friends, is the weakness of attempting to produce a standardised evaluation process that cuts across the department for same grade employees. Ultimately, it is dependent heavily on your immediate supervisor to decide your fate. It doesn't matter if it is a standardised or personalised evaluation process, so long as the evaluated weightages that matters are assigned by your immediate supervisor.
So what do most frustrated employees who perceive themselves as under-recognised do? They merely look for another job and resign out of frustration. This is the easiest route with little confrontation. But what happens when experienced and good but disgruntled employees leave the organisation? The company has to take the gamble hoping to recruit equally if not better employees. Meanwhile, internally, workload has to be reassigned. When workload increases, frustration also increases. More experienced and good employees would turn disgruntled. More will leave. All that is left? Dead woods that can't do proper work in the first place. Ultimately, the company suffers.
And it all started because some smart ass decided to have a standardised company wide performance based assessment done but forgot to add a caveat that fairness must be seen and practiced by assessors that applies the same standards across. And these smart asses usually come in guises of hallowed HR consultants being overpaid with lucrative fees which conveniently apply the same products peddled to all of its clients.
And who recommended these consultants in the first place when he/she is paid to do proper human resourcing needs of the company?
No comments:
Post a Comment