Should Self Rating be part of Performance Appraisal ?

Whether it is done annually as in most organizations or done as quarterly/Monthly reviews in few organizations, this is one area in HR regarding which most employees are aware of and have a opinion of their own - Performance Appraisals

Unless there are clear targets and a perfect measurement system to track them, there is always an element of subjectivity in appraisals which is the case with most white collar jobs.

Research from multiple sources has shown that people generally tend to have high opinion about their abilities and when given an option to rate themselves would generally self rate as above average or superior performers even though in reality they may not be as good as they thought them to be.

With this information known, how prudent it would be to have an option for self appraisal which some companies have as part of performance appraisal and which normally is executed before the supervisor gives his/her ratings.The rationale for such a practice
is that , it would give  supervisor information on what exactly employee thinks of his work abilities and can be part of performance discussion which happen as part of performance appraisal or while sharing the final rating. This makes sense because as a cultural trait,Indians generally do not voice their opinions in front of superiors and hence self ratings would give managers a sense of what their reportees think of themselves

But on the flip side, when an employee receives a rating lower than what he/she has rated as part of self appraisal, it would have a serious blow on self-esteem of such employees which then has a linkage to engagement level and turn over intentions for the employee to just name a few areas.With Normalization & bell curves being the norm of the day, where only a fixed percentage of employees can be given top ratings, there would definetely be cases where a self rated star performer might end up being an average performer thus having a serious impact on his self esteem and can then develop hatredness towards the person responsible for giving such a rating and suspicion towards the system

so would doing away with self ratings be a suitable alternative?

There are organizations where self rating is not part of Performance appraisals and the overall system seems to be working perfectly fine.But on closer look, one can see that in such organizations there is an element of participatory appraisal system where performance discussions are encouraged  and a strong redressal system in case if some one feels their performance ratings are lower than what they deserved are very much in place. If not, then it is nothing but a top down approach with employees having little say in system which affect them and will sooner or later have repurcusions to the organization in terms of increased turn over, lower productivity levels and negative attitude towards about work or organization.

So in conclusion, I would suggest that whether through self ratings or other mode,open discussion should be encouraged such that justice & fairness is felt by
employee which would increase his/her confidence in the system. If organization choose to have self rating, they need to have frequent performance discussions,apart from
annual appraisal where candid feedback on the performance of the employee will keep him realistic about his/her abilities.

Tweet

Recruitment Insights across Countries

Disclaimer: The opinions I mentioned are personal based on my limited interactions and may not be generalized :)


Thanks to the regional HR role, I had the opportunity of observing how people respond to interview process across different countries and how much culture of their country plays a role in their approach to the interview
So here goes , some experiences country wise

Indonesia:
Among the Indonesian candidates I have seen so far, no one confirms the offer during interview but would give a standard answer that they need to discuss with their wife before accepting the offer. Also during the salary negotiations all that matter is monthly net salary, medical and car benefits ( btw unlike in India, Indonesian employees are provided with car or car allowance from pretty early stage in their career). So year end allowance, quarterly pay out etc doesn't have their intended effect.
High cost of medical care and very bad public transport infrastructure explains the reason for Indonesian employee's high emphasis on these components.
 Will save detailed discussion on compensation in Indonesia for some other post

Now moving to one other very interesting country,

Australia:
It took me exactly 5 revisions and a call lasting for more than 1 hour before the candidate finally signed the 27 page employment contract. During the process the candidate appointed a lawyer for verifying the employment contract, who true to the fees he has taken, sent me close to 3 pages of comments and a lawyer from my side to finalize the contract.
The clarifications varied from as trivial ( Atleast in India) clauses like indemnifying the company in case if the candidate uses company mail in contravention to any local laws to his insistence on mentioning that he would be granted a week leave after one month of joining to attend his father's birthday.
Australians seem to be very particular about very minute details. For ex, when one of the employee resigned , he sent a mail stating that he would not be available for company purpose from so and so date from so and so time onwards. Car is definitely a provision and expected on day 1

South Korea:

The candidate we interviewed here was very insistent on adding a compulsory employment clause for 3 years irrespective of performance or business of the company. It may not be so much to do with culture specific as we are still establishing our permanent presence in Korea and the candidate is worried about stability. Nevertheless the clause stumped me because generally in these cases , candidates tend to demand a premium on salary for taking a job with ambiguity. Any how like in India , Employment contract is more open ended in Korea and candidate is quite ok after we shared our plans in Korea

The last of the series is Vietnam

Vietnam:

The candidate started the process by asking some questions even before the first  question was asked and the entire interview was more of conversation discussing about business of the organization rather an interview for the job. Final twist is when the question of compensation came up. The candidate said that he is not expecting to discuss about salary part in the first interaction, rather he will write to us his queries and if every thing goes fine, we can have a separate interaction to finalize the compensation

So that's about the experiences so far and honestly I have never read my employment contract so sincerely and with interviews for Singapore and Philippines lined up in the next few days , hoping for more enriching experiences

Tweet

Some quick thoughts on recruitment process

Recently I got to see the interview sheets ( where each panel member of the interview is asked to rate candidate on different parameters or competencies) and a final decision based on overall rating. One surprising finding is that the candidate who is shortlisted for further consideration is actually scoring low than some of the candidates who were rejected. The reason(s) in this case is pretty obvious. Lets see some of them:

• The interviewers went by their intuition on whether a candidate is good or not and used scoring sheets only as a justification at later point of time ( in this case they didn't bother to compare scorings with previous candidates). Each interview lasted on an average for more than 2 hours , so there is no doubt on how the candidates are assessed, but the point is the interview sheet which the company uses became more for the sake of record keeping rather than an evaluation tool

• Lets see another case. In this case the interview panel had thoroughly followed the process. But when it comes to making a final decision it depends on the senior most member in the panel, thus giving a scope of introducing bias in the system based on personal preferences of the senior most person.

There might be many other cases, but for now will stick to these 2 aspects as one can be solution to solving another.

when ever a senior member is involved in the panel, it makes a valid sense for each member to rate the candidate individually with explanations for ratings and discussion can happen based on the points written in the interview evaluation sheets. HR professional can facilitate this discussion phase as he is more likely to be objective as subject expert in the interviewing process

Now on a completely different topic, if a candidate is interviewed for a position which involves working in a team, it makes sense that the team leader who has a grasp on personalities of team members be involved in the interview process. It need not be leader in all the cases , some one who spent considerable time with the team can be a observer
In this case , the goal should not just be the best candidate but some one who can improve the performance of the team and who can assimilate better in the team
It should not be confused that selecting a candidate just to fit into the team at the cost of quality, some one who can question the underlying assumptions of the team and who can rationally question the team is fine , but some one who  can disrupt team cohesion would be a big NO

Lastly ,  As the saying goes "what u reap is what u sow",Getting right people on board helps achieving the organization goals in the long run

Tweet

The reason why most people in HR don't make it to the top

    
NOTE: This article is not written by me. Read it from http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&srchtype=discussedNews&gid=52264&item=268498134&type=member&trk=eml-anet_dig-b_pd-ttl-cn&fromEmail=&ut=0wvyit7bKhwBU1 written by Mr. Vinayak Nadkarni.
But content is so relevant that I can see HR professionals limiting themselves to lower levels day in and out
A must read for aspiring HR professionals
           

The reason why most people in HR don't make it to the top is because they have not groomed themselves to becoming ‘HR-driven business managers'. I can classify HR managers into five distinct categories based on the work they do:

 Level One: This is also the bottom most level, referred to as ‘HR administration' in which documentation, data gathering, record-keeping, and MIS are the main focus areas. This work is largely clerical and ‘outsource able'

 Level two: It revolves around monitoring and execution in which the focus is on collecting information, ‘reminding' people, getting forms filled and statutory obligations fulfilled. These may also include data analysis and feedback to the top management. The measures are quantified in terms of appraisal forms filled in time, capacity utilisation of training centres, recruitment and retention rates of employees

Level three: Here, designing and implementing are vital activities wherein the focus is on reviewing the existing systems, redesigning and starting new practices in performance appraisals, incentives/performance-linked pay, learning and development and employee engagement

 Level four: Here, one is busy strategizing, innovating, integrating and leading. In this level, the HR manager has to be aligned with business goals and his/her concerns shift from having a ‘good HR' to more of a ‘business driven HR' set-up. The HR person at this level is constantly looking for what is called as ‘next practices'. At this level, HR focuses on building leadership across the organization by using multiple tools including 360 degree feedback, development centres, top management team-building exercises, etc. Here, HR becomes talent-focused and the concern is on acquiring, retaining, nurturing and multiplying talent

Level five: And finally, this is the most evolved and progressive level focused on making HR a business partner. Here, managers realize that there can be no business without talented people at all levels and particularly at the top. They believe in the philosophy that people make business and therefore, ‘business-driven talent management' is essential. The focus shifts from tangibles to intangibles and from immediate and short-term performance goals to building long-term capabilities and from quarterly results to intellectual capital-building and shareholder value enhancement. Dave Ulrich calls this ‘outside–in HR'. I call this ‘business-focused HR'. The trouble with most HR people today is that they are stuck at the lower levels. A large number of them fail to grow beyond the first three levels. Many of them get habituated to hiring consultants and outsource their work rather than doing significant HR tasks themselves. How can you grow to be a CEO when you outsource recruitment, training, competency-mapping, employee engagement surveys and restrict yourself to being ‘materials managers' arranging for tender documents and finding out least expensive consultants? Shouldn't a modern-day HR manager understand customers and other stakeholders and direct the talent to be business-focused? Such HR managers can't grow to be CEOs. Our B-schools in HR do not prepare HR to be CEOs and in fact aim at preparing them for the first two or three levels of HR sadly.All CEOs are required to be good HR people and past leaders have demonstrated this. It is high time HR recognises the potential they are sitting on and change their ways.Almost all successful CEOs of the past and current corporate scenarios are good ‘people managers'.

Tweet

Employee Engagement Part 2- Need for Engagement

Here is the link for part 1:
http://anvesh87.blogspot.in/2012/04/employee-engagement-part-1.html

so why had Employee Engagement became such a Buzz word with organizations, especially in the recent past . Infact the word "Employee Engagement" is formally coined only in 1990's ( now don't sue me if it is not accurate) .
So does it mean that employees are not Engaged towards their work before 1990's ?.
if they are , why can't the companies continue with they had been doing for ages instead of going for some thing fancy .
Is "Engagement" a new management fad which is gonna passover with time ?

Having put so many questions , lets see whether there are answers for these questions and also as one of my profs say "back every thing with numbers", will also see what is the research done with respect to Engagement (quite a few consulting companies had done research in the topic)

If we look at the careers of our parents , i mean those who are the Generation X (born in 60s) and baby boomers (those who were born after world war 2) , we can observe a trend that most people stick to the same organization for years . The mantra here is "Job security" . organizations offered job security , pension benefits , medical benefits etc which in other way of saying you work for us for long term and we will take care of u  and employees did reciprocated with sticking to the organization for a long time

The situation has changed now . With globalization and changed business scenario, no company can guarantee an employee of a life long employement but instead the focus shifted to offering careers . It is now accepted that there would be attrition , the challenge is to retain the top performers to work with the organization for a long term and to help them perform at their peak capabilities . This is where our "ENGAGEMENT" concept comes into picture .

Now lets look at some of the outcomes of research done on Engagement:

• Towersperrin research on 50 global companies over a one-year period, correlating employee engagement levels with financial results:
• Companies with high employee engagement had a 19% increase in operating income and almost a 28% growth in earnings per share
• Companies with low levels of engagement saw operating income drop more than 32% and earnings per share declining over 11%

• Hewitt's study on 1500 companies over 4 year period:
• Engagement Level                                              share holder return
• 60-100%                                                              20.2%
• 40-60%                                                                5.6%
• below 40%                                                           -9.6% 

so it can be clearly seen that when less than 40% employees are engaged , the share holders returns are negative

there are many other studies done correlating engagement with customer satisfaction, profitability etc. Even though there might be difference in the numbers , but all studies show Engaged employees are assets to the organization and a source of competitive advantage

Tweet

Employee Engagement Part 1

Most of the employees especially those in software companies might have heard of "Engagement"  and the immediate recollection associates the term with all the get togethers, games and mails from HR on Engagement activities ...

But what exactly is engagement and why companies are interested in investing resources ( financial and intellectual) in getting the employees engaged ?

lets start with the definition of Engagement , (According to Hewitt Associates)
Engagement is the state of emotional and intellectual commitment to an organization-the degree to which you have captured the hearts and minds of your employees

There are many other definitions of Employee Engagement but the essence remains the same - An engaged employee stays connected with the organization at both emotional and intellectual and gives his best for the success of the organization

This connection happens at three levels :
Heart (SAY): An engaged employee says good things about the organization . one of the metrics to measure success here is to check the success of the company referral program ( though referral success can also depend on other factors like compensation, security etc and hence cannot be attributed to engagement alone)

Head (STAY):An engaged employee stays with the organization for long time as he visualizes his growth with the growth of the organization over long term . A caution here is that disengaged employees and poor performers also tend to stay with the organization unless until they find better opportunity else where . hence we introduce the third level "strive"

Hands(Strive): An engaged employee goes beyond his job role and flexible for the overall success of the organization.These are the employees who can see the business logic in changed job roles or work environments

Every employee have unique drivers for him to be encouraged .some of these can be generalized based on culture, demographies (ex: Gen Y employees requires more challenging work roles , though it cannot be the case with every Gen Y employee, it gives a platform to understand the employee and engage them)

In the current competitive environment when competitors can easily copy the business model , having an engaged work force is sure going to be a differentiator between successful organizations and other companies

Tweet

Pay for Performance

PAY is  one factor that shows up as both a source of satisfaction and a source of resentment among employees


Consider the scenario:
you want to attract the star talent to your company , so you pay him salary higher than the market rate .He comes and joins your organisation but the worth he brings to the organisation will very much be neutralised by the reduction in efficiencies of his team mates who compares their compensation with the new guy and gets frustrated as they are paid less than him . Now one may argue that money may not be the only motivator and good hr policies will help in retaining the employees and good performance appraisal system with clearly defined goals will make sure the employee is at desired productivity level.
But then no one can withold an employee from leaving the organisation


No matter how much you raise salaries, though, you won't generate motivation and job satisfaction, because job satisfaction is a function of the content of the job


People are dissatisfied with their pay when they feel it isn't commensurate with their efforts, is distributed inequitably,doesn't reflect the responsibilities of the job,or is out of touch with market realities.If you don't pay competitive wages,people will be unhappy and they will
On the other hand, if people feel that their pay reflects the quality of contribution they are making to their organization,and is equitable with other high-talent performers inside and outside the company,and recognizes the unique contributions that they make,then pay can be a powerful source of true motivation


what is the opportunity for real achievement and genuine accomplishment
Does my job allow me to do something that makes an actual difference?
Do i get recognized through nonmonetary means?
Do i have alot of say in how i do my job or am i totally constricted by standard operating procedures?
Can i learn and grow and develop on this job, or will i be tightening the same nut on the same bolt for the next 30 years?


Look at NGOs


If u cant satisfy people's pocketbooks, then satisfy their souls
Allow people freedom,discretion,and autonomy in doing the job
Increase the amount of challenge
keeping them engaged( this is most abused word and truly deserves a post on itself :P ) should not be of prime importance .let them be idle it doesn't matter


There might be jobs (coders in IT companies can very well connect) how well one try to be motivated there is no intrinsic fun in doing the repetitive job day in and day out . The responsibility as an effective leader is not to compensate the frustrated employee by offering him a pay raise . It might help in retaining the employee for the short term but in the long term the employee is sure to leave the organization . Rather the challenge should be in making the employees connect with the bigger picture of their actions (For ex: Soldiers in border patrol spends hours together manning and looking for intruders (which do not happen on a regular basis, but the major motivation in doing so is the feeling that they are making the country secure every single minute)


some thing on similar lines needs to be thought over for employees in organization and carefully integrate into the culture of the organization


PS: This article comes exactly a day before my final exam of Peformance management systems :P :P

Tweet