Appraisal of Life Part 2

In my last entry, I talked about standard performance appraisal that most companies are practising in determining the performance of their employees. I went to an interesting sharing session the other day conducted by our Group HR. And I really learned a lot of things...

Some people really take this annual performance appraisal seriously. Some think that it is their God given right to receive at least 2 months bonus from the company they work for (although some of them have really doubtful performance). But what some of them fail to realise is that their performance is always subjected to comparison against their colleagues. If a group of people is doing the same set of work, it is only logical to compare their performances against each other. And if they have different appraisers, it is more important to have some kind of moderation or levelling to ensure this group of people is rated consistently. Would it be logical to you if all these people are rated equally? 

Not every thing in this world is created equal. Say you have 10 people to be rated in terms of their competencies and achievement of KPIs. Don't bull me and say that they all perform equally well. There will be one or two who stand out and can be rated as "exceed expectations / high performers", and likewise, there will be a few who can be rated as "do not meet expectations" or who we call "non-performers". The rest, can be rated as "meet expectations" or just the "average" guys. Of course, another handful will be "below average" guys. Easily said, if you have 10 people to be rated, who would you put as no. 1, 2, 3, 4,5... and 10?

After knowing the rating, it is now the appraiser's duty to communicate this to these 10 people. But this is where the problem always seems to be never-ending. No body wants to be the messenger of bad news... because in this case he/she will definitely be shot! The messenger will definitely not be popular. So, instead of telling what the "non-performers" need to know, the appraiser (not wanting to be the bad person, or disliked, or trying to be popular) usually tells these "non-performers" that the management (of course I don't know which management he/she is talking about) has pulled down the rating to ensure that the bell curve is achieved for the department and for the whole organisation.

So the appraiser has passed on the accountability to the management (again... I'm still not sure which management is he/she talking about). What is so funny here is that as the appraiser, he/she is actually the management! But of course the poor (this does not refer to the performance) non-performers will only have their anger for none other than the Human Resource department because the department is the owner of the whole appraisal's process for the company.


Even after being advised accordingly, staff usually repeat this cycle every year. They still hold the Human Resource Department by the throat saying that they deserve that 6 months bonus because of their disillusioned high performance.


I wonder if I will even get a bonus this year... If yes, that will be the first in... I can't remember how many years!


ieja