cover feature
hear that the review results are usually a
reflection of how the manager perceives
the employee, rather than being based on
measurable facts.”
Food processing company Cargill, for
one, found their ratings system wasn’t a
trustworthy indicator of performance
or engagement, so they set up a threeyear,
no-ratings pilot project to see what
would happen. Year over year, 90 per cent
of the people involved in the pilot reported
that their experience was positive, so
Cargill has now expanded the pilot to the
entire company, doing away with the ratings
systems altogether.
The practice of ranking employees, in
which many organizations apply a bell
curve to the ratings results, has come
under scrutiny, too. Recent research suggests
this process inhibits collaboration.
A 2015 Harvard Business Review article
noted that because systems like this prevent
everyone from getting top marks,
employees learn that hard work doesn’t
necessarily pay off. Even with a team
full of A-players, a manager has to rank
some higher or lower than others. This,
say the researchers, encourages competition
rather than collaboration among
teams. It’s an argument that made sense
to Microsoft, convincing the company to
drop its ranking system in 2013 – a move
the company says has noticeably propelled
Even without the curve system, Kansas
State University researchers report that
simply assigning people a numerical rating
that’s less than the highest score can
be interpreted by them as negative feedback,
and that typically people don’t react
constructively to negative feedback.
“One of the inherent challenges with
ratings is that an employee might think
he’s doing a really good job and a manager
might think he’s just doing an okay
job,” said Knight.
As a result, employees feel frustrated
and may perceive the organization to be
less than fair.
ROOM FOR CONFUSION
Ratings and rankings do provide valuable
metrics and information for management.
Getting rid of them generally means replacing
them with some other process.
Some choose to engage in very structured
conversations with employees
about performance. For example, HR
might suggest specific questions on such
topics as collaboration, innovation and so
on, and then offer some training on how
to discuss these issues with employees.
Other organizations opt for more
of a “guided conversation,” where employees
discuss the goals they’ve set for
themselves, their progress, what they’ve
added to the company in the past and
what they’ll bring to it in the future.
Over 30 years' experience in pensions,
benefits and compensation law
collaboration.
• HR/pension/benefit
governance
• Pension regulatory
matters
• Fiduciary duties
• Pension investment
• Pension issues in
collective bargaining
• Pension and benefit
plan design
• Taxation issues
• Litigation support
Helping employers across Canada solve complex
problems and manage legal, financial, fiduciary,
regulatory and reputational risks
416-846-6855 | www.newtonhrlaw.com | mnewton@newtonhrlaw.com
While the conversations are meant to
be casual enough to remove some of the
anxiety around performance management,
they need to be structured enough
to be consistent and fair.
A well-structured system is also a
benefit for organizations that operate
in multiple countries, helping to navigate
cultural differences and avoid
miscommunication and the appearance
of subjectivity.
“I’ve had the good fortune of putting
performance management systems in organizations
across the globe, so I’ve seen
the effects of doing it in a very structured
manner,” said Papa. “When you’re
trying to do that across the globe, you
have different values, different skill sets
and people come from different walks
of life. Having a good PM tool gives you
framework and structure to align the organization,
drive proper decision-making
and proper strategic planning.”
COACHING FOR BETTER
PERFORMANCE
One of management’s stickier challenges
is how to handle an underperforming
employee. “Constructive criticism,” so the
theory goes, will help motivate the employee
to achieve better engagement and
performance. Anyone who’s been on the
receiving end of such criticism, though,
might disagree.
“We call it constructive criticism, but
it’s an oxymoron,” said Cook. “There’s no
construction when you’re doing demolition.
When someone does a lousy job,
you have three choices: You can do nothing.
Someone thinks they did a great job,
and life goes on. Your second option is
to write or call back and say that wasn’t
what you wanted and ask if they could
show you something else instead. With
this option, you might get what you want,
but you just torpedoed the other person’s
day. You’re ‘just being honest,’ or ‘just giving
feedback,’ but you’ve done a number
on the other person.”
Cook says that in his previous work
in the sales arena, there was consensus
among managers that you just couldn’t
afford to give negative feedback.
“If someone does something negative,
you can handle it – it’s your job to handle
22 ❚ MAY/JUNE 2016 ❚ HR PROFESSIONAL