We are encountering an unusual issue within our organization. During performance reviews, several managers assign 3+ ratings to associates, but later they approach HR to report performance problems and request placing these associates on a PIP. (Our rating scale ranges from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting the highest and 5 the lowest.) Besides conducting awareness sessions for managers on rating their team members' performance, how else can we address this practice? Any thoughts?
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
You can introduce 360 degree appraisals wherein the managers' performance could be rated by the subordinates also. Or if you start rating the managers according to their real contributions, they will realise whether they are. Then they will start giving real rating.
From India, Kannur
4250From India, Kannur
In L&T, where I had worked for 33 years and retired as Head of HR of one of its business units, we used to have a system, whereby the assessment by immediate superior is reviewed by the next superior or the boss of the boss. In such cases, if there is request for reversals, it is also notified to the Next superior. We should have checks and balances in the system so that the assessors do not play around with assessment. Am an HR Auditor and has conducted workshops and also helped companies review their Performance Management System. If interested, for a small consultation fee, I can help you set right things in your organisation. Best wishes
From India
From India
Assigning 3+ rating is not a creditable one, consequently marking them for PIP would be natural for such employees.
It looks like you have a closed system of PA and the employees are not aware of their rating. If so, you may consider making it an open system and allow employees to represent against the rating given to them within, say a week from the communication of such rating. The next higher authority can consider the objection raised by the employee and give a final verdict which could be binding on all.
From India, Mumbai
It looks like you have a closed system of PA and the employees are not aware of their rating. If so, you may consider making it an open system and allow employees to represent against the rating given to them within, say a week from the communication of such rating. The next higher authority can consider the objection raised by the employee and give a final verdict which could be binding on all.
From India, Mumbai
Have you asked them what is the reason for such a request?
They should be asked to explain why they gave a 3+ rating and then asking for a downgrade later?
You should also speak to the 3 employees to check if something happened later that caused a grievance.
Also please clarify, in a 1-5 rating, 3+ would actually mean below average performance, right?
From India, Mumbai
They should be asked to explain why they gave a 3+ rating and then asking for a downgrade later?
You should also speak to the 3 employees to check if something happened later that caused a grievance.
Also please clarify, in a 1-5 rating, 3+ would actually mean below average performance, right?
From India, Mumbai
Dear member,
This is in addition to what learned members have written. On completion of the Performance Cycle (PC), the managers conduct the Performance Appraisal (PA) for their subordinates. Once the PA is conducted, a subsequent PC begins. In the subsequent PC, there is a possibility that the subordinate's performance may go up or down. In that case, the managers need to wait for the completion of the current PC and award the marks accordingly. For the increase or decrease of performance in the current PC, they cannot approach HR Department for the revision of the marks awarded for the past PC. PA for the past PC should be a closed chapter and it cannot be reopened at the fancy of the managers.
In the companies where the PA is conducted traditionally, this problem arises. In the traditional PA, the managers "award" the marks. Since more than the measurement of the performance, the manager becomes the authority to disburse the marks, there is a possibility of this authority being misused. This type of arrangement breeds sycophancy as juniors try to keep their managers in good humour. Should someone falls out of favour with the managers, he/she starts approaching HR to teach a lesson to him/her.
In the modern Performance Management System (PMS), the KRAs must meet the SMART principle. The subordinate maintains the records of the performance for each KRA and "earns" the marks accordingly. Since the marks are based on evidence, the PA cannot be subject to the likes or dislikes of the managers even for the current PC. Neither the subordinate claims extra marks because such claims will be beyond his/her eligibility. In short, an organisation needs to create a performance meter for each employee. He/she gets the marks according to the meter reading. Nothing more, nothing less! Revision of the marks for the past PC should be beyond the realm of the MD also.
I have provided consulting services to establish a comprehensive PMS. In this system, I have implemented a concept of the performance meter for about 90%-95% of employees. Overall, it has been working well. I have not received complaints from my clients.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
This is in addition to what learned members have written. On completion of the Performance Cycle (PC), the managers conduct the Performance Appraisal (PA) for their subordinates. Once the PA is conducted, a subsequent PC begins. In the subsequent PC, there is a possibility that the subordinate's performance may go up or down. In that case, the managers need to wait for the completion of the current PC and award the marks accordingly. For the increase or decrease of performance in the current PC, they cannot approach HR Department for the revision of the marks awarded for the past PC. PA for the past PC should be a closed chapter and it cannot be reopened at the fancy of the managers.
In the companies where the PA is conducted traditionally, this problem arises. In the traditional PA, the managers "award" the marks. Since more than the measurement of the performance, the manager becomes the authority to disburse the marks, there is a possibility of this authority being misused. This type of arrangement breeds sycophancy as juniors try to keep their managers in good humour. Should someone falls out of favour with the managers, he/she starts approaching HR to teach a lesson to him/her.
In the modern Performance Management System (PMS), the KRAs must meet the SMART principle. The subordinate maintains the records of the performance for each KRA and "earns" the marks accordingly. Since the marks are based on evidence, the PA cannot be subject to the likes or dislikes of the managers even for the current PC. Neither the subordinate claims extra marks because such claims will be beyond his/her eligibility. In short, an organisation needs to create a performance meter for each employee. He/she gets the marks according to the meter reading. Nothing more, nothing less! Revision of the marks for the past PC should be beyond the realm of the MD also.
I have provided consulting services to establish a comprehensive PMS. In this system, I have implemented a concept of the performance meter for about 90%-95% of employees. Overall, it has been working well. I have not received complaints from my clients.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
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