We are encountering an unusual issue within our organization. During performance reviews, several managers assign 3+ ratings to associates, but later they approach HR to report performance problems and request placing these associates on a PIP. (Our rating scale ranges from 1 to 5, with 1 denoting the highest and 5 the lowest.)
Addressing Inconsistent Performance Ratings
Besides conducting awareness sessions for managers on rating their team members' performance, how else can we address this practice? Any thoughts?
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Addressing Inconsistent Performance Ratings
Besides conducting awareness sessions for managers on rating their team members' performance, how else can we address this practice? Any thoughts?
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You can introduce 360-degree appraisals wherein the managers' performance could be rated by the subordinates as well. Alternatively, if you start evaluating managers based on their actual contributions, they will realize their true impact. This, in turn, will prompt them to provide more authentic ratings.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
4526From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In L&T, where I worked for 33 years and retired as Head of HR of one of its business units, we had a system where the assessment by the immediate superior was reviewed by the next superior or the boss of the boss. In such cases, if there was a request for reversals, it was also notified to the next superior. We should have checks and balances in the system to ensure that assessors do not manipulate the assessment.
I am an HR Auditor and have conducted workshops, as well as helped companies review their Performance Management System. If interested, for a small consultation fee, I can help you set things right in your organization. Best wishes
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am an HR Auditor and have conducted workshops, as well as helped companies review their Performance Management System. If interested, for a small consultation fee, I can help you set things right in your organization. Best wishes
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Assigning a 3+ rating is not credible; consequently, marking such employees for PIP would be natural. It appears that you have a closed system of performance appraisal, and employees may not be aware of their ratings. If this is the case, you may want to consider transitioning to an open system that allows employees to contest the ratings assigned to them. Employees could be given a window, for example, a week from the communication of the rating, to raise objections. The next higher authority could then review the employee's objections and provide a final decision that would be binding for all parties.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Have you asked them what the reason is for such a request? They should be asked to explain why they gave a 3+ rating and then requested a downgrade later.
You should also speak to the three employees to check if something happened later that caused a grievance.
Also, please clarify, in a 1-5 rating, would a 3+ actually mean below-average performance?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You should also speak to the three employees to check if something happened later that caused a grievance.
Also, please clarify, in a 1-5 rating, would a 3+ actually mean below-average performance?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear member,
This is in addition to what learned members have written. On completion of the Performance Cycle (PC), the managers conduct the Performance Appraisal (PA) for their subordinates. Once the PA is conducted, a subsequent PC begins. In the subsequent PC, there is a possibility that the subordinate's performance may go up or down. In that case, the managers need to wait for the completion of the current PC and award the marks accordingly. For the increase or decrease of performance in the current PC, they cannot approach the HR Department for the revision of the marks awarded for the past PC. PA for the past PC should be a closed chapter and it cannot be reopened at the fancy of the managers.
In the companies where the PA is conducted traditionally, this problem arises. In the traditional PA, the managers "award" the marks. Since more than the measurement of the performance, the manager becomes the authority to disburse the marks, there is a possibility of this authority being misused. This type of arrangement breeds sycophancy as juniors try to keep their managers in good humor. Should someone fall out of favor with the managers, he/she starts approaching HR to teach a lesson to him/her.
In the modern Performance Management System (PMS), the KRAs must meet the SMART principle. The subordinate maintains the records of the performance for each KRA and "earns" the marks accordingly. Since the marks are based on evidence, the PA cannot be subject to the likes or dislikes of the managers even for the current PC. Neither the subordinate claims extra marks because such claims will be beyond his/her eligibility. In short, an organization needs to create a performance meter for each employee. He/she gets the marks according to the meter reading. Nothing more, nothing less! Revision of the marks for the past PC should be beyond the realm of the MD also.
I have provided consulting services to establish a comprehensive PMS. In this system, I have implemented a concept of the performance meter for about 90%-95% of employees. Overall, it has been working well. I have not received complaints from my clients.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is in addition to what learned members have written. On completion of the Performance Cycle (PC), the managers conduct the Performance Appraisal (PA) for their subordinates. Once the PA is conducted, a subsequent PC begins. In the subsequent PC, there is a possibility that the subordinate's performance may go up or down. In that case, the managers need to wait for the completion of the current PC and award the marks accordingly. For the increase or decrease of performance in the current PC, they cannot approach the HR Department for the revision of the marks awarded for the past PC. PA for the past PC should be a closed chapter and it cannot be reopened at the fancy of the managers.
In the companies where the PA is conducted traditionally, this problem arises. In the traditional PA, the managers "award" the marks. Since more than the measurement of the performance, the manager becomes the authority to disburse the marks, there is a possibility of this authority being misused. This type of arrangement breeds sycophancy as juniors try to keep their managers in good humor. Should someone fall out of favor with the managers, he/she starts approaching HR to teach a lesson to him/her.
In the modern Performance Management System (PMS), the KRAs must meet the SMART principle. The subordinate maintains the records of the performance for each KRA and "earns" the marks accordingly. Since the marks are based on evidence, the PA cannot be subject to the likes or dislikes of the managers even for the current PC. Neither the subordinate claims extra marks because such claims will be beyond his/her eligibility. In short, an organization needs to create a performance meter for each employee. He/she gets the marks according to the meter reading. Nothing more, nothing less! Revision of the marks for the past PC should be beyond the realm of the MD also.
I have provided consulting services to establish a comprehensive PMS. In this system, I have implemented a concept of the performance meter for about 90%-95% of employees. Overall, it has been working well. I have not received complaints from my clients.
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.
Using Bi-directional Performance Management.doc
Performance Management GUIDEBOOK.zip