Hi guys,
I have this performance rating problem that giving me a headache for the last 3 months. As any other companies, mine is divided into two main functions: Core and Support. Production and Marketing is the Core while the rest such as Accounting, HR, IT, General Affair, and Purchasing is the Support.
We are going to set up a new performance appraisal system. We have set the KPIs and the next step is setting the rating system. This is when the problem started. The Core people believe that their performance cannot be rated in the same way with the Support staff. They believe as the money generator function they are entitled to have more than what the Support staff could have. They proposed a 5 scale rating (Excellent, Good, Fair, Need Development, Fail) for Core and a 3 scale rating (Good, Fair, Need Development) for the Support. This, of course, is refused by the Support functions as they believe that they work as hard as any other functions in the organizations therefore they don’t want to be differentiated. This situation has been going on for 3 months without any conclusion. As an HR officer, my Director asked me to seek for advices from outside the company.
Could anybody please assist me? Or share your experience? What is the best way to deal with Core vs Support issue?
THANK YOU.
Aris
From Indonesia, Jakarta
I have this performance rating problem that giving me a headache for the last 3 months. As any other companies, mine is divided into two main functions: Core and Support. Production and Marketing is the Core while the rest such as Accounting, HR, IT, General Affair, and Purchasing is the Support.
We are going to set up a new performance appraisal system. We have set the KPIs and the next step is setting the rating system. This is when the problem started. The Core people believe that their performance cannot be rated in the same way with the Support staff. They believe as the money generator function they are entitled to have more than what the Support staff could have. They proposed a 5 scale rating (Excellent, Good, Fair, Need Development, Fail) for Core and a 3 scale rating (Good, Fair, Need Development) for the Support. This, of course, is refused by the Support functions as they believe that they work as hard as any other functions in the organizations therefore they don’t want to be differentiated. This situation has been going on for 3 months without any conclusion. As an HR officer, my Director asked me to seek for advices from outside the company.
Could anybody please assist me? Or share your experience? What is the best way to deal with Core vs Support issue?
THANK YOU.
Aris
From Indonesia, Jakarta
ARIS,
THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
-IS NOT TO COMPARE DEPARTMENTS WITH DEPARTMENTS
-BUT FOR COMPARING DEPARTMENTS PERFORMANCE AGAINST
ITS OWN OBJECTIVES.
-REVIEW INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE AGAINST SET KEY PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS.
-CLASSIFICATION OF CORE / SUPPORT IS MEANT FOR
*SHOWING UNITS WHICH PRODUCES / MARKETS
*SHOWING UNITS WHICH PROVIDES SERVICES
-ALL ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF THE CO.
================================================== =========
Performance management is a principal tool in achieving corporate objectives in that it links those objectives with employee goals and achievements. It focuses on improving performance through matching outcomes against individual, team and organisational objectives, and to the training and development needs of employees at all organisational levels. Managers using performance management effectively are generally more concerned with performance planning and improvement than retrospective performance assessment.
Performance management is an accepted management practice operating within both public and private sectors because it can be a valuable process for employees and employers alike. It provides for both recognition of high performance and early detection of performance that is not meeting expectations, allowing prompt remedial action to be taken
At a macro level performance management assists organisations to match outcomes with objectives. It provides a system for improving CO. performance and outcomes, within the CO. policy framework, while maintaining good industrial relations. It generates benefits throughout organisational functions and processes.
Performance management recognises that people are the organisation’s most valuable resource, and that people are the key to an innovative, professional and service-oriented public service. Performance management emphasises the relationship between the management and development of people and an effective organisation, and provides a fair and equitable environment for improving performance.
A performance management system links achievements at all levels of the organisation with corporate, business and DEPARTMENT objectives. It provides the framework for:
· clarifying expectations, roles, responsibilities and resources required to achieve goals;
· improving communication and understanding between managers and employees in terms of work requirements, expectations, performance criteria and achievements;
· linking individual, team or unit performance with quality assurance, continuous improvement and evaluation processes of the organisation;
· facilitating, encouraging and assessing performance;
· encouraging structured feedback from employees and supervisors on performance and career planning and from the community on organisational performance;
· introducing an outcomes focused culture and increasing motivation;
· collecting data and information needed for management decision making or external review (eg by auditors);
· increasing the organisation’s capability to meet future requirements and to improve outcomes for the community;
· identifying performance which requires improvement; and
· recognising and acknowledging performance.
. The objectives of the PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL System are to:
Provide employees with a sense of their work accomplishments relative to expectations and predefined performance indicators.
Support employee development through discussion of assigned opportunities and training.
Emphasize the CO's commitment to continuous improvement and learning.
Encourage an appropriate relationship between pay levels and work performance.
Avoid surprises; keep lines of communication open.
Provide the option to document performance in a narrative format relative to specific accomplishments during the review period.
SO STICK TO 5 POINT SCALES FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS.
REGARDS
LEO LINGHAM
From India, Mumbai
260THE PURPOSE OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL
-IS NOT TO COMPARE DEPARTMENTS WITH DEPARTMENTS
-BUT FOR COMPARING DEPARTMENTS PERFORMANCE AGAINST
ITS OWN OBJECTIVES.
-REVIEW INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE AGAINST SET KEY PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS.
-CLASSIFICATION OF CORE / SUPPORT IS MEANT FOR
*SHOWING UNITS WHICH PRODUCES / MARKETS
*SHOWING UNITS WHICH PROVIDES SERVICES
-ALL ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF THE CO.
================================================== =========
Performance management is a principal tool in achieving corporate objectives in that it links those objectives with employee goals and achievements. It focuses on improving performance through matching outcomes against individual, team and organisational objectives, and to the training and development needs of employees at all organisational levels. Managers using performance management effectively are generally more concerned with performance planning and improvement than retrospective performance assessment.
Performance management is an accepted management practice operating within both public and private sectors because it can be a valuable process for employees and employers alike. It provides for both recognition of high performance and early detection of performance that is not meeting expectations, allowing prompt remedial action to be taken
At a macro level performance management assists organisations to match outcomes with objectives. It provides a system for improving CO. performance and outcomes, within the CO. policy framework, while maintaining good industrial relations. It generates benefits throughout organisational functions and processes.
Performance management recognises that people are the organisation’s most valuable resource, and that people are the key to an innovative, professional and service-oriented public service. Performance management emphasises the relationship between the management and development of people and an effective organisation, and provides a fair and equitable environment for improving performance.
A performance management system links achievements at all levels of the organisation with corporate, business and DEPARTMENT objectives. It provides the framework for:
· clarifying expectations, roles, responsibilities and resources required to achieve goals;
· improving communication and understanding between managers and employees in terms of work requirements, expectations, performance criteria and achievements;
· linking individual, team or unit performance with quality assurance, continuous improvement and evaluation processes of the organisation;
· facilitating, encouraging and assessing performance;
· encouraging structured feedback from employees and supervisors on performance and career planning and from the community on organisational performance;
· introducing an outcomes focused culture and increasing motivation;
· collecting data and information needed for management decision making or external review (eg by auditors);
· increasing the organisation’s capability to meet future requirements and to improve outcomes for the community;
· identifying performance which requires improvement; and
· recognising and acknowledging performance.
. The objectives of the PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL System are to:
Provide employees with a sense of their work accomplishments relative to expectations and predefined performance indicators.
Support employee development through discussion of assigned opportunities and training.
Emphasize the CO's commitment to continuous improvement and learning.
Encourage an appropriate relationship between pay levels and work performance.
Avoid surprises; keep lines of communication open.
Provide the option to document performance in a narrative format relative to specific accomplishments during the review period.
SO STICK TO 5 POINT SCALES FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS.
REGARDS
LEO LINGHAM
From India, Mumbai
U may use the following example to explain the same.
Say a European company wants to import Watermelons or Chikoos due to budget constraints.
So they sent their specifications for Watermelons as well as chickoos.
Watermelons should have this weight & this surface shine & this shade of green, etc.
Chickoos should be this soft, grown organically only and this radius / diameter should be between this & this.
Now India sent our best samples of both. it was found that Chickoos were matching 98% on the criteria & Watermelons 95%.
Naturally they decided to import Chickoos.
Did they compare chickoos with Watermelons - NO!!. they compared them against the targets for Chickoos and targets for Watermelons.
In all my experience, this tends to stem all further argument / discussion or disagreement
Hope that helps.
A
Say a European company wants to import Watermelons or Chikoos due to budget constraints.
So they sent their specifications for Watermelons as well as chickoos.
Watermelons should have this weight & this surface shine & this shade of green, etc.
Chickoos should be this soft, grown organically only and this radius / diameter should be between this & this.
Now India sent our best samples of both. it was found that Chickoos were matching 98% on the criteria & Watermelons 95%.
Naturally they decided to import Chickoos.
Did they compare chickoos with Watermelons - NO!!. they compared them against the targets for Chickoos and targets for Watermelons.
In all my experience, this tends to stem all further argument / discussion or disagreement
Hope that helps.
A
hi,
Your technical people have confused with two things. when you say rating the people performance, in this rating system is used to rate the performance of a person against the set KPI's. so support function will have their own KPI and core function will have their own KPI...
so at the end of the day it is about checking that KPI is achieved or not.
certain companies after this performance evaluation they do few more ranking or grouping for to bring some rationale for the systems linked with PMS system like the incentives, promotion etc.,
where the top level performer is taken and then remaining people are ranked from the top level performer by percentile system. where the top level perfomer may get more incentive compared to the next one...
so may be your core team may be pointing out that they want more incentives or say different criteria for incentive compared to the support function... or the problem here can be that importance and incentives....
so it will be good that u can make standard system for all... and try to presentation to convince employee to make the implementation successful..
From India, Vadodara
Your technical people have confused with two things. when you say rating the people performance, in this rating system is used to rate the performance of a person against the set KPI's. so support function will have their own KPI and core function will have their own KPI...
so at the end of the day it is about checking that KPI is achieved or not.
certain companies after this performance evaluation they do few more ranking or grouping for to bring some rationale for the systems linked with PMS system like the incentives, promotion etc.,
where the top level performer is taken and then remaining people are ranked from the top level performer by percentile system. where the top level perfomer may get more incentive compared to the next one...
so may be your core team may be pointing out that they want more incentives or say different criteria for incentive compared to the support function... or the problem here can be that importance and incentives....
so it will be good that u can make standard system for all... and try to presentation to convince employee to make the implementation successful..
From India, Vadodara
Hi,
My view to your query is that you should have two different band structures and compensation structures but the Performance Review form should remain the same. In an organization, it is not advisable to have different forms for different functions.
The rating criteria should be same for core and support functions. For core teams they have some targets which is directly reflecting the business of the organisation, hence, there is a high pressure on them and for which they are highly paid or compensated (basic salary + incentives).
But for support function, core teams are the clients, for core teams to perform and meet their targets, support teams are facilitating them with smooth processes, timely giving them the rewards and recognitions, timely conducting their reviews, etc. etc.
Definitely, support team may not get the same compensation package as the core team is getting.
You should try to convince, that support team plays an equal role, they are facilitating the core team to perform better.
I hope you have understood what I had conveyed in this message.
Regards,
Nishi
From India, New Delhi
My view to your query is that you should have two different band structures and compensation structures but the Performance Review form should remain the same. In an organization, it is not advisable to have different forms for different functions.
The rating criteria should be same for core and support functions. For core teams they have some targets which is directly reflecting the business of the organisation, hence, there is a high pressure on them and for which they are highly paid or compensated (basic salary + incentives).
But for support function, core teams are the clients, for core teams to perform and meet their targets, support teams are facilitating them with smooth processes, timely giving them the rewards and recognitions, timely conducting their reviews, etc. etc.
Definitely, support team may not get the same compensation package as the core team is getting.
You should try to convince, that support team plays an equal role, they are facilitating the core team to perform better.
I hope you have understood what I had conveyed in this message.
Regards,
Nishi
From India, New Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Performance Appraisal Form for Staff.doc