There is no doubt that the users of Performance Management process, as it exists today have several grievances against it ,though it will be incorrect to say that it is complete failure on part of HR function only.
As per various reports ,disenchantments to the PM process has been on the grounds of purported deficiencies in its objectivity, openness , fairness , feed back e.t.c
Let us try to examine each of the areas separately.
Objectivity : To my understanding ,objectivity of PM process depends primarily on identifying & defining the KPA’s & KRA/Goals as clearly as possible . There is also a need to articulate the targets very well which requires a considerable amount of imagination . The problem initiates in this area, especially with those Goals which cannot be numerically/mathematically expressed. The solution lies possibly of expert help initially & building up targets over a period of time . I say building up because ,75% to 85% of the jobs in any organization is generally routine & repeats for several years.
Unfortunately what we tend to find in most organization is to somehow fill up some forms & complete the prescribed paperwork, that too mostly at the end of the year , instead of correctly working out the targets.
The next problem in this area is identification of agreed KPI’s & Measures , which is also an extremely imaginative area & requires careful articulation . To give you an example , in most organizations “employee engagement “ an important KPA for HR department have generally “employee attrition” its KPI. Can HR be made one hundred percent responsible for attritions happening all over the company ? In almost all organizations, this is generally not a choice for HR .
Feedback & Fairness : A standard PM system has “ feed back “ as part of the process , where an appraiser is supposed to discuss & inform the appraise about the deficiencies & lacunas in his/ her performance vis-aviz decided agreed targets . This becomes a tricky area because of a lot of subjectivity involved in assessment. If the KRA’s are very SMART & measures are specific & pointed , the scope of disparities is substantially reduced .
Besides the above a lot of grievance on the ground of fairness arises because of integrity issues on part of the appraiser ,trust deficit between the Appraiser & the appraise , which are but a purely leadership issues . There also are issues of a few belligerent & stubborn appraise. To my understanding it is almost impossible for PM as a process , to address these issues ,which are related to human emotion.
The famous Microsoft imbroglio with PM process being practiced there , which made headlines in Forbes , was because of the practice of “forced rating”( based on bell Curve ) . It is a matter of choice for any organization to accept or reject the “the forced rating part of the process .
I think another serious grievance with PM process is something not really related to the PM process , but to the subsequent usage of the outcomes of PM process to disburse annual rewards/ increments . Wide differences in financial(& promotional) rewards between exemplary/average / underperformers leads to dissatisfaction . The dissatisfied lot blame the PM process , which is actually incorrect.
As per various reports ,disenchantments to the PM process has been on the grounds of purported deficiencies in its objectivity, openness , fairness , feed back e.t.c
Let us try to examine each of the areas separately.
Objectivity : To my understanding ,objectivity of PM process depends primarily on identifying & defining the KPA’s & KRA/Goals as clearly as possible . There is also a need to articulate the targets very well which requires a considerable amount of imagination . The problem initiates in this area, especially with those Goals which cannot be numerically/mathematically expressed. The solution lies possibly of expert help initially & building up targets over a period of time . I say building up because ,75% to 85% of the jobs in any organization is generally routine & repeats for several years.
Unfortunately what we tend to find in most organization is to somehow fill up some forms & complete the prescribed paperwork, that too mostly at the end of the year , instead of correctly working out the targets.
The next problem in this area is identification of agreed KPI’s & Measures , which is also an extremely imaginative area & requires careful articulation . To give you an example , in most organizations “employee engagement “ an important KPA for HR department have generally “employee attrition” its KPI. Can HR be made one hundred percent responsible for attritions happening all over the company ? In almost all organizations, this is generally not a choice for HR .
Feedback & Fairness : A standard PM system has “ feed back “ as part of the process , where an appraiser is supposed to discuss & inform the appraise about the deficiencies & lacunas in his/ her performance vis-aviz decided agreed targets . This becomes a tricky area because of a lot of subjectivity involved in assessment. If the KRA’s are very SMART & measures are specific & pointed , the scope of disparities is substantially reduced .
Besides the above a lot of grievance on the ground of fairness arises because of integrity issues on part of the appraiser ,trust deficit between the Appraiser & the appraise , which are but a purely leadership issues . There also are issues of a few belligerent & stubborn appraise. To my understanding it is almost impossible for PM as a process , to address these issues ,which are related to human emotion.
The famous Microsoft imbroglio with PM process being practiced there , which made headlines in Forbes , was because of the practice of “forced rating”( based on bell Curve ) . It is a matter of choice for any organization to accept or reject the “the forced rating part of the process .
I think another serious grievance with PM process is something not really related to the PM process , but to the subsequent usage of the outcomes of PM process to disburse annual rewards/ increments . Wide differences in financial(& promotional) rewards between exemplary/average / underperformers leads to dissatisfaction . The dissatisfied lot blame the PM process , which is actually incorrect.