Comments on: Influencing Corporate Policy

By: Ehab

Ehab — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:10:58 +0000

Let me start out saying that I am not a manager nor I have much experience in HR, but I’d like to pose a question to the group. I look at this issue as a prioritization effort. Choosing between buying food or medicine when you are out of money is an extreme example. None of us like the idea of picking one over the other, but sometimes we have to. Even within the A team, where everyone is an over achiever, there are differences. In the Olympics you could be a great swimmer but never get a medal. To get the team to always aspire to be better and never settle or rest, don’t we need to continue to look up and push everyone up? Even if you are at the top of your game today, keeping that post is very hard and requires a lot of work. I am not sure if the 20/70/10 ratios are the best, but it is a lot easier than asking to rank employees according to performance, 1,2,3…etc. I do agree that this ranking makes a lot more sense for an individual sport and the risk involved for a team sport. So may be in team sports we need to rank within the team as well as the team as a whole. If we reward people for their individual performance as well as their overall team performance, maybe we can find the balance between team cohesiveness and continuous improvement. Thoughts?

By: Vernel

Vernel — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:49:01 +0000

Joseph,

In a team of 5-20 people, it’s entirely possible that no one fits the needs improvement category. Delivering this rating to someone who does not deserve it qualifies as a crucial conversation in my mind. Pretending that they do deserve it, acting like you have no choice, and saying they are just being victimized by the company all seem somewhat unethical to me. I would (and have) refused to do it.

Joseph, how would you suggest we handle it with the employee?

Vernel
Vernel

By: Tim Etter

Tim Etter — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:39:44 +0000

Joseph poses a good question when he asks if you are being honest with yourself about the quality of your team and whether you are stepping up to crucial conversations.

Here’s an idea to stimulate your thinking on this subject. Suppose you had to pick your work team today. From your current roster, who would you pick? Your answer will generally fall into one of 3 categories. I would pick this person without reservation. I would pick this person with reservation. I would probably pass on this person and pick someone new.

Anyone who falls into the last 2 categories should probably not receive anything higher than a “Meets Expectations” rating. They are also owed a crucial conversation.

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:47:26 +0000

When you mentioned: “1. Invite study”, I thought you were going to show them how you develop people and why 70/20/10 doesn’t match your actual evaluations. I agree with looking at why it’s wrong, but use your own process and evalus as a model. Have them look closely at your team!

The issue of overall bonus compensation across the org is an issue, but should be tied to org improvement, and if the org improves a lot, that should go to those who contribute, and their should be a correlation between org performance and compensation.

By: Amy

Amy — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:08:55 +0000

Joseph – I agree with Don that you may have left out a strategic element of “stay and influence”. In my extensive experience working with large and small companies, upper management will likely accept a deviation from the 70/20/10 rule, IF it errs on the side of results. So my suggestion – like Don’s – would be to ask each employee to self-assess their own 70/20/10. Certainly, it would be a great idea to compile a list of team-based improvements and work on them together. But I would also encourage the regular review and assessment of action plans for each employee to work on their individual improvements. For example, if an employee mentioned that they were weak in returning email on a timely basis, I as a manager would help that employee make an action plan, AND would check in weekly to review results and help readjust as needed. As you mention, the reason senior management imposes forced assessment plans is to get managers to do their job: to provide resources, perspective, direction, and motivation for the people who work for them. You are there to assist employees in achieving breakthrough performance, not to assess them out of existence. A plan like this could be the best thing that ever happened to your team! (Got lemons? Make lemonade.)

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:33:10 +0000

Thanks for a great response. I read a book by Harvey-in which he attacks this rule. This normal distribution of performance is only possible if there is no interdependence of staff such that each persons performance is solely dependent on thier own effort. If you have a true interdependent team, almost everyone should be functioning at the same level with a few who dont respond to the team. I find the art of holding effective crucial conversations and creating safety in the team helps all to perfom at their best. I have been consistently rating everyone high and use examples to show that everyone can improve including so called high performers and low performers.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:10:02 +0000

Joseph,

I also was a manager for years with a company which had a similar ranking system, and I had some of the same concerns about the system’s fairness. At the same time, I believe you are spot-on, at least as it relates to that company (and probably many others). Lots of managers convince themselves that “my team is superior to this arbitrary curve”.

There is an additional factor to mention. Very few companies, if any, can afford to pay their people as if 40-50% are top performers. The salary plan has to take the available $$, based on forecast business results, and divide them over the workforce. The pay scale for a 20-70-10 distribution is significantly different than a pay scale for 30-65-5 or whatever people are advocating. The result is that top performers would get less as the money is spread more widely, and then they feel under-appreciated and leave for better opportunities. A company has to determine what their average $$ distribution will be over the workforce. Then it CAN decide to have flexibility within individual units and make sure it evens out at the higher levels, but that gets back to the management discipline you referred to – it is often no better at the middle management level than at the lower level, which is why companies have to impose rigid policies to stay within their budgets.

By: Tammie

Tammie — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:58:04 +0000

First of all, I would assume that when you are reviewing the employees, you have told them your true opinions (that the rating was not deserved but necessary). Otherwise it will spiral from feelings of “why keep trying if my rating is so low. I would also talk with other workers about this or these employees to see if your rating is close to what they think. Follow Dons suggestions. As to Marla’s question: Simply explain that you need to follow policy even if you don’t agree with it. Then state that “this rating was made following company policy” in the comments. I would also give them a separate letter with the positive feedback if they did an excellent job.

By: Marla

Marla — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:16:26 +0000

Having worked for a company with a similar performance ranking system both as an employee and a manager, I witnessed and experienced the demoralization that occurred when a high-performing employee was ranked at the low end in order to accommodate the demands of the ranking system. As a manager, who did not support this system, I felt powerless at the time (10 years ago) to influence change. I do agree with the influencing options that you outlined, but how does a manager address the concerns of the employees who fell on the low end of the ranking scale for no reason other than “someone has to be there!”?

By: Athena

Athena — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:10:21 +0000

I hope you choose the third option, to stay and try to influence change. These types of systems create an inward, competitive focus that can ruin a good company. Looking at other options and gathering information (on your own time) might educate you to the point of being well prepared when the right opportunity arises to suggest or help open discussion to a change. Asking questions to understand the reason for the change could also be helpful and would also identify the key concerns that an alternative system would need to address. Good luck!