Performance appraisal is a difficult point in enterprise human resources management, not only because it evaluates employees and analyzes their strengths and weaknesses; but also because performance appraisal results are often linked to employee salary, employee training, and employee promotion. If the performance appraisal is reasonable, it will have a great motivating effect on employees; but if the performance appraisal is unreasonable, it can easily bring about negative emotions among organizational personnel and even lead to the loss of talent. As the saying goes, "Don't worry about scarcity but inequality." Fairness and justice in performance appraisal are often the key to the success or failure of performance appraisal. However, how to balance performance is also one of the headaches for many HRs, often causing conflicts in corporate performance management.
The balance of performance includes: the balance of performance among employees within a department and the balance of employee performance between departments. It is relatively easy to ensure the balance of performance among employees within the department by doing two aspects: on the one hand, ensuring that the performance appraisal indicators are reasonably formulated and can measure the key behaviors of employees and the benefits they bring to the enterprise; second, it is necessary to Department managers strictly monitor their performance, adopt scientific evaluation methods, keep daily performance records, and rate employee performance in a fair and equal manner. However, the balance of employee performance between departments is a difficulty in general performance appraisal. Let’s first look at the following two most common situations in enterprises:
A certain enterprise is a manufacturing enterprise group. A works in department A, and his work performance is very good within the department; B works in department B, and his work performance is average. After one year, because the overall performance level of department A is low (only 70 points), the upper limit of A's performance score is 70 points; and because the overall performance level of department B is very high (100 points), the upper limit of B's performance score is 100 points. . The problem that arises is that in terms of personal performance, A is far better than B, but due to the "impact" of organizational performance, the final evaluation results and even income level are that A is inferior to B. A is indignant and feels that B is "free riding".
Not only that, there was also an imbalance between departments A and C in this company’s performance evaluation. A and C work in departments A and C respectively, and both have excellent results. After one year, the performance scores of both organizations were 100 points. However, because the head of department A has strict requirements, individual performance scores within the department are generally low; while the head of department C has relatively loose requirements, and individual performance scores within the department are generally high. In the end, although A and C were as good as individuals and departments, A's overall evaluation result was not as good as C's.
How to balance the performance between departments is really a big problem. From the above two cases, we can summarize two problems that often occur in the performance evaluation of inter-department employees: First, the department "involves" employees. Although employees perform well, due to the low overall performance score of the department, This "implicates" employees, resulting in the performance of diligent and motivated employees in this department being lower than those with mediocre performance in other departments. This directly brings a sense of unfairness to the employee and is likely to dampen his enthusiasm for work. Second, because different supervisors in different departments have different evaluation criteria, department managers with stricter assessments will generally have lower assessment scores for their subordinates; department managers with looser assessments will generally have higher scores for their employees. This also leads to imbalance and unfairness in performance between departments.
So, how to solve these two situations? After many years of practical experience in management consulting, Huaheng Zhixin has summarized the following views.
For question 1, First of all, it needs to be made clear that adding department performance to employee performance evaluation is worthy of recognition. Employees' income is linked to the operating status of the company and the efficiency of the department, so that the employee's behavior is consistent with the organization's goals, and avoids that although employees work hard, their efforts are in the opposite direction to the overall direction, which not only fails to produce good results , and may even bring numerous negative consequences. Therefore, employee performance is linked to department performance, which plays a role in guiding employee behavior and motivation.
Secondly, it needs to be made clear that the main purpose of performance is to give feedback on how well employees are doing and point out their shortcomings, while performance scores between different departments are actually less comparable. This is because different departments are responsible for different tasks. Some departments have heavy tasks, high risks, high difficulties, many changes, and more chances of making mistakes in their work; while some departments, such as accounting, etc., have a lot of changes in their work. Small, routine work with low risks, mistakes can be avoided as long as you work carefully and carefully. Obviously, for different departments, there is no comparability in performance results.
Combining the two points mentioned above, we propose the following solutions:
STEP1: Determine the responsibilities and work difficulty of different departments.
STEP2: The employee's performance salary, performance score and department position attributes are determined at the same time.
The department position attributes are the difficulty level, risk level, etc. of the work of different departments obtained in STEP1. For those departments that are prone to errors and have difficulty in obtaining high performance results, when calculating performance pay, their department position attributes should be given extra points. Finally, a balance of employees between departments will be achieved, and employees will not be more difficult to perform due to For large jobs, more mistakes are made, resulting in performance pay being lower than for people with the same work ability and attitude in other departments.
Of course, in order to truly deal with situation 1, the key points are to balance the performance between departments, how to set department performance indicators, how to measure department job attributes, etc. In addition, companies of different sizes and natures, as well as different department positions, are also different and require further specific and detailed analysis.
For questionsSecond,First of all, performance evaluation cannot be 100% quantified, and the bias of subjective factors cannot be avoided or eliminated. . First, for the evaluation of attitude and ability indicators, even if it can be specific to specific behaviors and results, it cannot be 100% quantified. Moreover, it is not scientific to rely solely on quantitative indicators for the evaluation of attitude ability. Therefore, in In most cases, such indicators need to be scored by superiors or through 360-degree evaluations, and subjective factors cannot be avoided.
Secondly, it should be made clear that the performance rating result is only a relative score. For different departments, the supervisors between departments are different, and the performance ratings of employees are actually incomparable. What employees should really pay attention to is the company's use of performance results. They should pay attention to whether the company has achieved fairness and achieved balance in the actual incentive process based on the performance appraisal results.
So, how do you strike a balance in implementing practical incentives? Here we cite a better method: top-down distribution.
STEP1: Determine the total number of performance companies available for allocation by the department.
STEP2: Determine the performance of each employee within the department.
STEP3: Based on the relative performance of internal employees, allocate the total performance salary of the department to employees.
Give an example to illustrate:
STEP1：
If department A has three employees A1, A2, and A3, their performance salary bases are:
a1 (200), a2 (300), a3 (400), the total performance salary base is: a1+a2+a3 (900)
If evaluated by superiors, the performance score of this department is: F=90 points
The total performance salary available for distribution in Department A is:
T=（a1+a2+a3）×F/100=900×90/100=810 yuan
STEP2：
As mentioned above, the basic performance salaries of the three employees in department A are a1 (200), a2 (300), and a3 (400). After evaluation by the department manager, their evaluation scores are: f1 (80), f2 (70) , f3 (60), then the sharing ratio of performance wages to three employees is:
a1×f1（200×80）：a2×f2（300×70）：a3×f3（400×60）=16：21：24
STEP3:
The amount of performance salary payable to A1 is: 810×16/(16+21+24)=212.4 yuan
Similarly, the amount of performance salary payable to A2 is: 278.9 yuan; the amount of performance salary payable to A3 is: 318.7 yuan
Finally, it is worth pointing out that different companies have different individual backgrounds and situations. The above views are only based on general understanding. Companies should analyze specific problems when implementing specific systems, and should not assume that success can be achieved by using them directly. . At the same time, the issue of performance balance has only been briefly discussed here, and further and in-depth research is needed.