There is no doubt that the users of the Performance Management process, as it exists today, have several grievances against it, though it would be incorrect to say that it is a complete failure on the part of the HR function only. As per various reports, disenchantment with the PM process has been on the grounds of purported deficiencies in its objectivity, openness, fairness, feedback, etc.
Objectivity
To my understanding, the objectivity of the PM process depends primarily on identifying and defining the KPAs and KRAs/Goals as clearly as possible. There is also a need to articulate the targets very well, which requires a considerable amount of imagination. The problem initiates in this area, especially with those Goals which cannot be numerically/mathematically expressed. The solution possibly lies in seeking expert help initially and building up targets over a period of time. I say building up because 75% to 85% of the jobs in any organization are generally routine and repeat for several years.
Unfortunately, what we tend to find in most organizations is an attempt to somehow fill up some forms and complete the prescribed paperwork, mostly at the end of the year, instead of correctly working out the targets.
The next problem in this area is the identification of agreed KPIs and Measures, which is also an extremely imaginative area and requires careful articulation. To give you an example, in most organizations, "employee engagement," an important KPA for the HR department, generally has "employee attrition" as its KPI. Can HR be made one hundred percent responsible for attritions happening all over the company? In almost all organizations, this is generally not a choice for HR.
Feedback & Fairness
A standard PM system has "feedback" as part of the process, where an appraiser is supposed to discuss and inform the appraisee about the deficiencies and lacunas in his/her performance vis-à-vis decided agreed targets. This becomes a tricky area because of a lot of subjectivity involved in assessment. If the KRAs are very SMART and measures are specific and pointed, the scope of disparities is substantially reduced.
Besides the above, a lot of grievances on the ground of fairness arise because of integrity issues on the part of the appraiser and a trust deficit between the appraiser and the appraisee, which are purely leadership issues. There are also issues with a few belligerent and stubborn appraisees. To my understanding, it is almost impossible for PM as a process to address these issues, which are related to human emotion.
The famous Microsoft imbroglio with the PM process being practiced there, which made headlines in Forbes, was because of the practice of "forced rating" (based on the bell curve). It is a matter of choice for any organization to accept or reject the "forced rating" part of the process.
I think another serious grievance with the PM process is something not really related to the PM process, but to the subsequent usage of the outcomes of the PM process to disburse annual rewards/increments. Wide differences in financial (and promotional) rewards between exemplary/average/underperformers lead to dissatisfaction. The dissatisfied lot blames the PM process, which is actually incorrect.
Objectivity
To my understanding, the objectivity of the PM process depends primarily on identifying and defining the KPAs and KRAs/Goals as clearly as possible. There is also a need to articulate the targets very well, which requires a considerable amount of imagination. The problem initiates in this area, especially with those Goals which cannot be numerically/mathematically expressed. The solution possibly lies in seeking expert help initially and building up targets over a period of time. I say building up because 75% to 85% of the jobs in any organization are generally routine and repeat for several years.
Unfortunately, what we tend to find in most organizations is an attempt to somehow fill up some forms and complete the prescribed paperwork, mostly at the end of the year, instead of correctly working out the targets.
The next problem in this area is the identification of agreed KPIs and Measures, which is also an extremely imaginative area and requires careful articulation. To give you an example, in most organizations, "employee engagement," an important KPA for the HR department, generally has "employee attrition" as its KPI. Can HR be made one hundred percent responsible for attritions happening all over the company? In almost all organizations, this is generally not a choice for HR.
Feedback & Fairness
A standard PM system has "feedback" as part of the process, where an appraiser is supposed to discuss and inform the appraisee about the deficiencies and lacunas in his/her performance vis-à-vis decided agreed targets. This becomes a tricky area because of a lot of subjectivity involved in assessment. If the KRAs are very SMART and measures are specific and pointed, the scope of disparities is substantially reduced.
Besides the above, a lot of grievances on the ground of fairness arise because of integrity issues on the part of the appraiser and a trust deficit between the appraiser and the appraisee, which are purely leadership issues. There are also issues with a few belligerent and stubborn appraisees. To my understanding, it is almost impossible for PM as a process to address these issues, which are related to human emotion.
The famous Microsoft imbroglio with the PM process being practiced there, which made headlines in Forbes, was because of the practice of "forced rating" (based on the bell curve). It is a matter of choice for any organization to accept or reject the "forced rating" part of the process.
I think another serious grievance with the PM process is something not really related to the PM process, but to the subsequent usage of the outcomes of the PM process to disburse annual rewards/increments. Wide differences in financial (and promotional) rewards between exemplary/average/underperformers lead to dissatisfaction. The dissatisfied lot blames the PM process, which is actually incorrect.