HAND OUT ON PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PAINS

Submitted to DR.RAMLAL PORIKA ASSITANT PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT, NIT WARANGAL

Submitted by D.SRAVANI (128916)

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PAINS:

Performance Assessment carries with it all the issues related to judgment of one person by another. Not all managers are able to practice objectivity in the assessment of their subordinates.

Achievement of Targets:
The first issue that is often a common malady in this process is the casualness with which the rating of target achievement and overall performance is carried out. Today most organizations have adopted a Management by Objectives (MBO) approach. This requires every employee to have a set of Objectives / Targets to be agreed with his/her manager at the beginning of the year. The problem is that these targets / objectives are often stated in an ambiguous fashion and at the year-end when the achievement is measured against the set targets; it results in much debate and disagreement. The recommended SMART (Specific, Measurable, Aspirational, Relevant and Time bound) target setting approach is a good way out of this problem. However, when it comes to commenting on the extent of achievement even against SMART targets, the manager has to be objective in deciding what should be considered as Target achieved, when should it to be rated as not achieved, and when should it be rated as partially achieved.

Quality of Assessment Commentary:

Quite often, at the year-end, when the manager has to complete the performance assessment of his/her team members the factual inputs are missing to make it specific and meaningful. In many cases, this is on account of the lack of efforts by the managers in engaging with their team members to understand the real context of performance and what has been their approach to it. The task completion often dominates the mind-space of a manager that he/she does not spare the time to understand the building blocks including the team capability and individual members issues. This often leads to a very broad brush and generalistic commentary, which hardly does justice to the individuals real performance. Many managers tend to take the safe path o f saying positive generalities.

Personal discussion:
In most cases, the performance assessment is done and completed by the manager unilaterally and the inputs for various decisions are sent on that basis. This is often the trigger for heartburns and frustration amongst employees. Even in cases where the manager has a performance discussion with the team member, it is more to communicate the appraisal rather than to have an engaging conversation. The positive effect and value of a performance discussion is beyond measure. The purpose of this discussion is to share and understand the different aspects encompassing the

employee and his/her performance at the workplace. It is not only about the year gone by, but also about the holistic relationship and feelings around the job and the dreams / aspirations held by the employee.

Performance Rating:
The struggle for most managers is in terms of assigning a rating for the performance of their team members. Organizations typically have a 5 or 7 point scale for evaluating the performance. Many organizations also prescribe a norm for the distribution (e.g. Bell Curve) of the performance rating for every team / unit / entire organization. Since this is a relative rating of the performance, it willy-nilly indicates how the individual employee compares in terms of performance with respect to all others in their team. Managers who are not sure of their assessment or managers who are uncomfortable in discussing their true assessment of their subordinates struggle with this requirement of differential rating

Bane of the Bell Curve:

One issue that I have seen most Line and HR Managers fight over is the Bell Curve. The concept of the Bell Curve is that in any reasonable sample or population the performance scores tend to follow the shape of a Normal Distribution (Bell Curve). Hence, the HR department expects the managers of every division / department to rate their team members in a manner that the distribution of ratings is Normal (take the shape of a Bell Curve). This is understandable when the population is large and random.

Consequence Linkages:
The mood in a number of organizations around the performance assessment time is dreary and despondent. The reason for this is that most employees fear that they are going to be misjudged and have to bear the burden of biased assessment, while managers postpone the (uncomfortable) task of determining who gets how much reward. The performance assessment is equated to reward decisions (at least in the minds of the employees). The reason for this is that over the years they have come to realize that the main purpose of the performance assessment is to decide annual increments and bonuses. No doubt, that the reward lever is a crucial one for managing the performance of people and, therefore, it is linked to the performance assessment so that the loop is closed. Further, it can lead to reinforcing the impact of the lever.

Key Leadership Tool:

Most of the people comment that the problems with Performance Management are universal and everlasting. I consider that to be a fatalistic approach to the subject. It is such attitudes that make it a problem and a pain. Hence in this article I have focused on common

issues encountered in the practice of Performance Management and also given my suggested approach to a better process / experience. Performance Management is an arduous process but if sincerely approached it can prove to be a powerful process, which can enable the complete understanding and achievement of the potential in individuals, teams, and organizations. It needs to be seen and operated as an integral core of every organization. While it may be facilitated by and considered as a part of the HR Professionals ambit, it needs to be owned and operated with passion and purpose by every manager in the organization.