The basic philosophy and format of performance appraisals across companies are broadly the same. Organisations will claim their performance philosophies and processes are layered and textured, customised and modified to suit the nature of the organisation, the talent within and the sector it belongs. An annual appraisal for each employee, ensuing dialogue and rating are usually what transpire between supervisor and employee. Layers and textures are seen in mid-year reviews, additional pre-work for appraisals or if clear outcomes from the process are defined. Organisations with large head counts and a spread-out workforce conduct ?moderations?, or include discussions as part of ?business reviews?, as Schneider Electric refers to them and these forums ensure consistencies are maintained across business units about ?standards and evaluations?.
Commenting on the process at Schneider Electric, Shalini Sarin, director-HR, says, ?This is when our talent is discussed in detail. Have high performers consistently performed, what cross-functional or cross-cultural exposure do they need to grow up in their roles, what critical roles could they be used in, do critical positions need a ?crash? or ?future? filling, is the supervisor confident of the subordinates evaluation or is an independent assessment centre needed to validate the same?? Schneider conducts this time-consuming exercise for its roughly 3,000 white-collar employees at the local, national, Asia-Pac and global levels which allows both a macro- and micro-level perspectives of employees.
The complexity of performance appraisal is compounded by the employee perspective. Executive search firm Korn/Ferry has quoted a 2007 study that found that, ?90% of managers think they are among the top-10 performers in their workplace.? The Korn/Ferry study goes on to state that ?most executives overstate the performance of their talent.? Supervisors would do so to present their teams as good performers, keep their teams feeling appreciated so that they are motivated to perform and also because good performance ratings translate into good increments, which will protect employees from leaving for salary. Performance appraisals are also conducted to differentiate top performers from the rest. Here again Korn/Ferry offers a caveat, ?don?t confuse performance with potential?, even while potential is measured by performance it is not necessary ?your high performers are your high potential.? Many high performers are content with the job they are doing, not wanting change. The Korn/Ferry survey cites the characteristics of high potential as those who are ?ambitious and have learning agility.?
If managers looked at performance management philosophically, many fundamental questions, otherwise left unanswered, would get addressed. Philosophically one could ask, ?How can we expect stellar performance from our employees without first being sure they enjoy what they do?? A counter to this question could be, ?How many of us really have the luxury to do what we enjoy and, if given the opportunity, how many actually will do justice to it before getting entwined in jaded behaviour, petty politics and ego issues?? But this would be the topic for a whole new article and best saved for another time. On appraisals, most companies will boast of fantastic processes that effectively capture employees? performance by placing them in buckets such as outstanding, above average, average and below average. However, how many templates capture a true understanding of their employees, in terms of their interests, their aptitudes, and their innate capabilities?
The joy a writer finds in words, an artist in watercolours or oil paints and a blank canvas, a lawyer in inductive reasoning, an accountant in ledgers and records, a mechanic in car parts and an engineer in software code. This should be the basis on which careers are built. Aptitude consultants say, ?How much you care about the tools of your profession will determine how much you are able to innovatively evolve with them.?
The process has to start not during performance review, but before an employee joins an organisation. Why is it candidates who were thought as great at the interview fail to deliver on their promise on joining an organisation? Is it because employers failed to match the job in the company to the aptitude of the candidate? As experts say, aptitude cannot be tailored to a performance appraisal. David Lyon, testing director at Johnson O?Connor Research Foundation, says, ?Aptitudes aren?t skills, and they aren?t knowledge. They can?t be learned. They are innate abilities for learning to do certain things, and the prevailing belief is that they are inherited.?
malvika.chandan@expressindia.com