Dear Seniors,
During appraisals, we face a problem in identifying the actual rating of people because some HODs set lower standards for their subordinates while evaluating performance, and some HODs are very stringent raters and give a lower rating even to the star performer of the team. For example, if the highest performer of a lenient department HOD is at 95%, then even the top performer of a strict HOD is at 65%.
What could be done to ensure logical rating standards?
The KRAs of all departments must have a similar level of difficulty because it will impact the final ratings. Less challenging KRAs will receive higher ratings, and those with tough targets will receive lower ratings, posing a challenge for us. Therefore, we cannot directly correlate the increment percentage with the KRA scores.
Is there an easy method to normalize this issue?
Excluding the bell curve method of top 20%, middle 80%, and bottom 20% because it may occur that in one department, top performers may exceed 20% and vice versa. By enforcing the bell curve, we do not want to set limits on top/bottom performers.
Please suggest if you have any solutions for this issue.
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
22During appraisals, we face a problem in identifying the actual rating of people because some HODs set lower standards for their subordinates while evaluating performance, and some HODs are very stringent raters and give a lower rating even to the star performer of the team. For example, if the highest performer of a lenient department HOD is at 95%, then even the top performer of a strict HOD is at 65%.
What could be done to ensure logical rating standards?
The KRAs of all departments must have a similar level of difficulty because it will impact the final ratings. Less challenging KRAs will receive higher ratings, and those with tough targets will receive lower ratings, posing a challenge for us. Therefore, we cannot directly correlate the increment percentage with the KRA scores.
Is there an easy method to normalize this issue?
Excluding the bell curve method of top 20%, middle 80%, and bottom 20% because it may occur that in one department, top performers may exceed 20% and vice versa. By enforcing the bell curve, we do not want to set limits on top/bottom performers.
Please suggest if you have any solutions for this issue.
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Aakansha, your observation about the imbalance in setting the targets is valid. The targets should be neither extremely stiff nor too easy to attain. The first principle of PMS is "KRAs should be SMART," i.e., these should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound.
However, the execution of the first principle of PMS can be done by the seniors of the respective HODs. We, the members of this forum, are outsiders, and we do not know anything about the conditions of work or work itself. Therefore, you may approach the Director or Managing Director of your company and put forth your observation. Let them review the targets set.
Secondly, what you have not mentioned is KRAs for the Managers themselves. Who sets their KRAs, and what is their score? Going further, what are the KRAs for the departments? Are these assigned to the respective HODs? If yes, then have costs and ratios associated with each department been identified and assigned to the respective HOD?
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
However, the execution of the first principle of PMS can be done by the seniors of the respective HODs. We, the members of this forum, are outsiders, and we do not know anything about the conditions of work or work itself. Therefore, you may approach the Director or Managing Director of your company and put forth your observation. Let them review the targets set.
Secondly, what you have not mentioned is KRAs for the Managers themselves. Who sets their KRAs, and what is their score? Going further, what are the KRAs for the departments? Are these assigned to the respective HODs? If yes, then have costs and ratios associated with each department been identified and assigned to the respective HOD?
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM.doc
Performance Evaluation Guidelines.ppt