Psychometrics
I have seen a lot of performance appraisal systems and processes over the years. Often very well structured, “perfectly” designed systems and processes. But I think there is a common (more than average?) problem.
Particularly when performance is linked to reward. (Not best practice in my opinion.)
Impact?
Reward linked reviews may lead managers to make sure their team is not penalised for “under performance.” So “poor performers” become “above average” to grab a fair (?) share of bonus.
When everyone does this, nobody benefits.
And as a more general issue, I fear that average performance is not normally viewed as meaning average; rather its “underperforming.”
Over rating also leads to another problem; Not too many Cooks…but too many Head Chefs? Organisations which look like they are chock full of high performers, high po’s and future leaders. That is not representative of the picture in any organisation. Even high some of the most performing ones.
I am no mathematician, but scoring does not always stack up.
(Cue normal Bell Curve distribution diagram…)
So, what may be in play?
I reckon one of three things;
Poorly defined rating scales; too vague or with negative connotations i.e. “below average”
Managers simply avoid managing poor performance
“Keeping the peace” is easier than providing honest / constructive feedback
So, what needs resolved?
Inflated ratings do not help. Nor do they motivate.
If I am “below average” I would rather understand exactly where and how I can improve so I can become better.
If I think I am better than I am (very good?), will that motivate me to improve? I think not.
I snappily call it the “perpetual cycle of achieving just above average.”
Normal bell curve distribution suggests that 49% of us are technically “below average”. Over rating can also blur actual development needs and undermine succession planning as performance assessment becomes a work of fiction.
Worst case?
Cue my favourite Seth Godin quote; “Very good is the enemy of excellent.”
Strong performers / high po’s become much harder to spot, getting lost in a sea of “very good's.” And very goods do not try as hard to improve. Hence, the enemy of excellent...then, under performance is not just tolerated, but arguably “praised.”
The fix?
Effective assessment is not about being harsh or critical. It is about being fair, accurate and constructive. Not using destructive ratings.
If average is a dirty word, below average is plain grubby…
It is not just the process; we need effective ratings that help not hinder.
Development Need sounds better than Below Average.
Three questions:
Does your process / ratings actively encourage “above average” scoring?
Do you regularly challenge the accuracy, consistency, and courage of assessment scoring?
Would you like help to make this excellent? (Email us...)
Or maybe your process / scoring system is already “very good”…
Need help to improve your performance management process?
Email us at hello@whitecubeconsulting.com.