•
Saturday, July 21, 2007
It is an increasingly competitive world. And, competition knows only one direction - Northwards.
Global business is a crowded place. With companies vying to gain a bigger share of the pie, they are definitely feeling the heat. 'Innovate or die' is the new mantra. It demands that the companies have to perform better and constantly improve. This heat has nowhere to go, but upon its (hapless) workforce - till the grass roots of the corporate 'food chain'. They leave no stone unturned in trying to squeeze out that last drop of performance from its people. 'Better' people get the 'Carrot' while the others get the 'Stick' (Carrot and Stick principle). Naturally, people stretch themselves to get the 'Carrot'. Darwin's theory 'Survival of the Fittest' applies equally well in today's corporate world - be it organizations or its people. No doubt, this serves to bring the best among people and organizations. However, it is not without drawbacks. Here are a few things that I can think of.
Team vs Individual
An interesting, but conflicting thoughts, are at work, constantly. While the organizations understand that gone are the days of individual brilliance; 'Team Work' is the new mantra. However, at the same time, the individual contributions could not be condoned. It is indeed a tight rope walk - a delicate balancing act that many organizations falter upon.
Some managers go to extent of glorifying their 'so-called' top performers. There are instances where these pampered 'demi-gods' get so inebriated that they stop heeding to fellow team members (and perhaps, even abuse them). In contrast, when the organization downplays an individual's contribution, it is not a healthy scenario either. There is always the risk of them getting demotivated.
Unfortunately, the (majority of the) corporate world has failed to strike a right balance.
Forcing your own Talent Landscape
Many organizations have a some sort of performance evaluation process in place, which is revised and 'upgraded' every few years. It is more likely that they copied it from other successful companies or from one of those management books. Invariably, people are rated on a scale of, say, 1 - 5 or A - E, or something like that. The criteria used to measure is equally rigid - "Deliver quality work on time" or "File 100 patents this year!!".
It is a known fact that every individual comes bundled with a unique set of attributes (which we call 'Talent'). This inherently implies that performance is a Relative phenomenon. Add to it the varying circumstances that people and organizations go through. Measuring performance is not just difficult, but volatile too.
Having said that, it is rather difficult to employ a 'standard' procedure to measure a 'volatile' thing. Also, the rating you receive is one of the criteria that determines your bonus, increment and other perks. Further, some companies try to fit its people into a pre-defined geometry - The Bell Curve. This puts a cap on the number of people in a given category, thereby forcing the shape of the talent landscape in your organization. For god's sake (rather, company's sake), why don't they just accept the natural landscape that exists, and help it evolve.
1. This methodology only serves to generate unsatisfied employees - those who thought they would make it, but narrowly missed. They are likely to start updating their resume!.
2. Another important but subtle thing that often goes unnoticed (by managers) is that it is sometimes really unfair. As Joel writes in his article,
Conclusion
Well, the question to be asked is that: Is the modern corporate world mature enough to evolve a better performance evaluation system? Will we ever discover it?
The moral of the story is: Do not take such ratings too very seriously, for it might not be what you ought to do. As Steve Jobs says, "You Have Got to Find What You Love".
Global business is a crowded place. With companies vying to gain a bigger share of the pie, they are definitely feeling the heat. 'Innovate or die' is the new mantra. It demands that the companies have to perform better and constantly improve. This heat has nowhere to go, but upon its (hapless) workforce - till the grass roots of the corporate 'food chain'. They leave no stone unturned in trying to squeeze out that last drop of performance from its people. 'Better' people get the 'Carrot' while the others get the 'Stick' (Carrot and Stick principle). Naturally, people stretch themselves to get the 'Carrot'. Darwin's theory 'Survival of the Fittest' applies equally well in today's corporate world - be it organizations or its people. No doubt, this serves to bring the best among people and organizations. However, it is not without drawbacks. Here are a few things that I can think of.
Team vs Individual
An interesting, but conflicting thoughts, are at work, constantly. While the organizations understand that gone are the days of individual brilliance; 'Team Work' is the new mantra. However, at the same time, the individual contributions could not be condoned. It is indeed a tight rope walk - a delicate balancing act that many organizations falter upon.
Some managers go to extent of glorifying their 'so-called' top performers. There are instances where these pampered 'demi-gods' get so inebriated that they stop heeding to fellow team members (and perhaps, even abuse them). In contrast, when the organization downplays an individual's contribution, it is not a healthy scenario either. There is always the risk of them getting demotivated.
Unfortunately, the (majority of the) corporate world has failed to strike a right balance.
Forcing your own Talent Landscape
Many organizations have a some sort of performance evaluation process in place, which is revised and 'upgraded' every few years. It is more likely that they copied it from other successful companies or from one of those management books. Invariably, people are rated on a scale of, say, 1 - 5 or A - E, or something like that. The criteria used to measure is equally rigid - "Deliver quality work on time" or "File 100 patents this year!!".
It is a known fact that every individual comes bundled with a unique set of attributes (which we call 'Talent'). This inherently implies that performance is a Relative phenomenon. Add to it the varying circumstances that people and organizations go through. Measuring performance is not just difficult, but volatile too.
Having said that, it is rather difficult to employ a 'standard' procedure to measure a 'volatile' thing. Also, the rating you receive is one of the criteria that determines your bonus, increment and other perks. Further, some companies try to fit its people into a pre-defined geometry - The Bell Curve. This puts a cap on the number of people in a given category, thereby forcing the shape of the talent landscape in your organization. For god's sake (rather, company's sake), why don't they just accept the natural landscape that exists, and help it evolve.
1. This methodology only serves to generate unsatisfied employees - those who thought they would make it, but narrowly missed. They are likely to start updating their resume!.
2. Another important but subtle thing that often goes unnoticed (by managers) is that it is sometimes really unfair. As Joel writes in his article,
"... For example, one friend of mine was a cheerful catalyst, a bouncy cruise director who motivated everyone else when the going got tough. He was the glue that held his team together. But he tended to get negative reviews, because his manager didn't understand his contribution. Another friend was incredibly insightful strategically; his conversations with other people about how things should be done allowed everyone else to do much better work. He tended to spend more time than average trying out new technologies; in this area he was invaluable to the rest of the team. But in terms of lines of code, he wrote less than average, and his manager was too stupid to notice all his other contributions, so he always got negative reviews, too. Negative reviews, obviously, have a devastating effect on morale. In fact, giving somebody a review that is positive, but not as positive as that person expected, also has a negative effect on morale."
Conclusion
Well, the question to be asked is that: Is the modern corporate world mature enough to evolve a better performance evaluation system? Will we ever discover it?
The moral of the story is: Do not take such ratings too very seriously, for it might not be what you ought to do. As Steve Jobs says, "You Have Got to Find What You Love".
Appraisal
,
Corporate
,
Organization
,
Performance
|
0 comments :