Mike Beek's published reply to the article by
Paul Falcone that appeared in the August 2007
SHRM HR Magazine:
Odd Approach to Performance
Appraisals
I just read an article in the August issue of
HR Magazine, published by the Society for Human
Resource Management (SHRM) entitled, Big-Picture
Performance Appraisal by Paul Falcone.
Mr. Falcone is apparently a best-selling author
and I guess hes well respected in the human
resource field
but, I was taken aback by what he was proposing
in this article about how to look at deciding
on an individuals overall performance rating.
He suggests that you go back to the old-school
bell-curve concept.
He argues that each unit in the business should
first rate itself on a 1 to 5 scale, with a 1
representing significantly under performing, a
3 performing at a 100% level, and a 5 representing
significantly over performing. Lets say
a given business unit like Sales rates its overall
performance a 4.2, Falcone says that the overall
average total score of all employees in the unit
should also equal 4.2. That means if you rate
some people over 4.2, you need to make sure others
are rated below that number.
I guess the logic is that these two numbers only
make sense if they are equal. Talk about backing
into numbers from the top down instead of the
bottom up. In my mind, this doesnt reflect
the actual performance of the individual.
If you are artificially force-fitting an individuals
scores to match a units overall score, how
is this fair to the individual? More importantly,
how can management look at people in the same
position across the company and do an accurate
comparative analysis?
Another strange point in this article is that
Falcone suggests every business unit and everyone
should be striving to be rated a 5 overall! If
a 3 is considered a 100% performance level, it
would seem to me that most people would be striving
to be that A employee or A
business unit. Sure, it is possible that some
employees sometimes perform above expectations,
but rarely should the performance standards be
set so that the employee consistently exceeds
expectations for all performance measures.
If employees are rated 4s and 5s
then they are not being challenged enough. I coach
my clients to set the performance standards for
each performance measure in a way that asks the
employee to stretch even to be rated a 3. If an
employee is consistently rated 4s and 5s,
how do they get challenged to get to their next
level?
Falcone also fixates on the overall score as
the number to focus on when filling out the appraisal.
Heres another area where I disagree with
his thinking. Best practice says that you look
at each performance measure on its own and score
it based on the performance standards for that
measure.
At the end of the process an overall score is
calculated using the weighted scores of each measure.
I suggest you take that one step further
instead of showing the overall number on
the 1 to 5 scale, you convert it to a %. Why do
this?
Well, its natural for everyone to want
to be rated a 5 instead of a 3 since a 3 is halfway
down the scale giving it a connotation of an average
rating when in fact a 3 represents a 100%, or
A, performer.
If you really want to help your company align
your human capital to maximize your companys
performance, set the right performance measures
for each position and for each person and rate
them on each of those measures. Dont back
in to numbers set at the top. Thats the
only way you are really going to know how your
employees are performing so you can use those
results for organizational development, succession
planning, and other human-capital related actions.
September
20, 2007
|