Hi,
I want to understand Normal Curve statistics used during performance appraisal. What I mean is after performance appraisal, normally 5 % people fall in outstanding category , 2 % fall in poor category and rest of them in average category. Numbers maynot be correct but this is the principle. Please share your thoughts,research and PPTs on this.Regards Ramesh
From Singapore, Singapore
5I want to understand Normal Curve statistics used during performance appraisal. What I mean is after performance appraisal, normally 5 % people fall in outstanding category , 2 % fall in poor category and rest of them in average category. Numbers maynot be correct but this is the principle. Please share your thoughts,research and PPTs on this.Regards Ramesh
From Singapore, Singapore
In my estimation, appraisal systems built on "ranking" are ineffective and a drain on resources as well as lowering morale. All of these thing detract from instead of enhancing organizational development, productivity and efficiency.
Appraisals should be used to identify areas of personal/professional growth which contribute to the organization's continued growth, or as Toyota says, "Moving forward".
A ranking system is ineffective because the top performer one year, may be the bottom performer the next. In addition, since most companies tend to "downsize" the lower levels, replacing them with unknowns (or in some cases younger, cheaper employees), the older, more expensive employees, who by the way have extensive product knowledge, customer rapport, and 'best practice" experience, are relegated over time to the lower levels, in preparation of termination. Ranking is costly and in some cases economically unfeasible.
Ranking is also a drain on resources since supervisors, managers, department heads, who are the ones conducting such reviews, usually agonize over the process. Posturing to provide the appropriate personnel to be selected for the top spots, and arranging for others to be relegated to the bottom. It is stressful for both the appraiser and the apprasee, who must remember, devise, develop a defense or explanation as to his/her performance over the past year. Where such a defense is lacking, where performance has been impacted by outside forces beyond the employee's control, where the employee did not have the appropriate tools/ support to complete the task, or where goals/priorities have changed, the employee starts on the slippery slope to the lower rungs.
Appraisal rankings, finally, are a morale buster instead of being a morale booster. By sheer historical facts, employees realize that sooner or later, due to rising to the highest level compensation, no promotional opportunities, incompetence, age, appraiser bias, or other factors, one is targeted for replacement at the whim of the company and the appraisal system.
That's why I've always been a proponent of a performance management system which encourages resourcefulness, adaptability, personal and professional growth, in a word, ownership of the goals and direction of the company, rather than a cold, calculating, and capricious appraisal system.
Just my thoughts,
PALADIN
From United States,
Appraisals should be used to identify areas of personal/professional growth which contribute to the organization's continued growth, or as Toyota says, "Moving forward".
A ranking system is ineffective because the top performer one year, may be the bottom performer the next. In addition, since most companies tend to "downsize" the lower levels, replacing them with unknowns (or in some cases younger, cheaper employees), the older, more expensive employees, who by the way have extensive product knowledge, customer rapport, and 'best practice" experience, are relegated over time to the lower levels, in preparation of termination. Ranking is costly and in some cases economically unfeasible.
Ranking is also a drain on resources since supervisors, managers, department heads, who are the ones conducting such reviews, usually agonize over the process. Posturing to provide the appropriate personnel to be selected for the top spots, and arranging for others to be relegated to the bottom. It is stressful for both the appraiser and the apprasee, who must remember, devise, develop a defense or explanation as to his/her performance over the past year. Where such a defense is lacking, where performance has been impacted by outside forces beyond the employee's control, where the employee did not have the appropriate tools/ support to complete the task, or where goals/priorities have changed, the employee starts on the slippery slope to the lower rungs.
Appraisal rankings, finally, are a morale buster instead of being a morale booster. By sheer historical facts, employees realize that sooner or later, due to rising to the highest level compensation, no promotional opportunities, incompetence, age, appraiser bias, or other factors, one is targeted for replacement at the whim of the company and the appraisal system.
That's why I've always been a proponent of a performance management system which encourages resourcefulness, adaptability, personal and professional growth, in a word, ownership of the goals and direction of the company, rather than a cold, calculating, and capricious appraisal system.
Just my thoughts,
PALADIN
From United States,
Hi,
Thanks. I totally agree with your thoughts. The reason why I asked this question was, companies like GE were using this methodology to differentiate high performers & poor performers and I read that they achieved great success by doing so. I dont know whether they are still continuing it or not, but many multinational companies practicing this.
Regards, Ramesh.
From Singapore, Singapore
Thanks. I totally agree with your thoughts. The reason why I asked this question was, companies like GE were using this methodology to differentiate high performers & poor performers and I read that they achieved great success by doing so. I dont know whether they are still continuing it or not, but many multinational companies practicing this.
Regards, Ramesh.
From Singapore, Singapore
Hi Ramesh Please do let me know how you go about with the Performance appraisal system in your company. I am in look out for a calculative methodology for performance appraisal. Regards, P Umesh.
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
See the attached file, "STEN Scores.pdf", for a Bell Curve.
STEN Scores are one half a standard deviation above and below the 50th percentile.
Employers that hire for talent know that all their employees will meet or exceed their goals therefore a force ranking or bell curve doesn't do much good.
Managers need to evaluate their direct as follows:
From United States, Chelsea
STEN Scores are one half a standard deviation above and below the 50th percentile.
Employers that hire for talent know that all their employees will meet or exceed their goals therefore a force ranking or bell curve doesn't do much good.
Managers need to evaluate their direct as follows:
- Exceeds goals
Meets goals
Doesn't meet goals
From United States, Chelsea
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 Review Form - KDCL for year 2010.xls
Employee Performance.pdf