A Sad Parody

Anish joined a company last year and was assigned to a project which had high visibility. He was part of a very small team and he worked very hard in implementing the project and making the project live. He was thenceforth actively involved in the implementation of new requirements and other modules.

Last month, he was reviewed by his Head as to what his rating should be, on a scale of 5. He said that he expected nothing less than 4. Clearly surprised, the Head asked him why he should get a 4. To which Anish replied that he was there since the beginning of the project, right after the requirement finalisation stage. He went on to explain the role he played in the implementation of the project. The Head nodded his head in defeat and said “I Accept. You have done a lot. I will give you a 4. But lot more has to be done and I am expecting you to do a lot more.”

Elated how the discussion went, Anish went home to his parents and shared the good news and told them that with a minimum of 1,00,000 coming his way, he will be able to contribute significantly to this month’s house expenses.

Time passed, and finally the day of salary credit arrived. After seconds ticked by like hours, Anish finally received an sms that salary has been credited. He opened it and was stunned to find only 40,000 was credited.

Confused as to what could have happened, only one conclusion he drew – that HR had made an error while calculating his incentive. But when he showed his salary slip to his friend & colleague, his friend quickly suggested that Anish’s rating was 3. A one-to-one mail from the Head to Anish stating that his final moderated rating was 3, only confirmed Anish’s worst fears.

Rife with anger and betrayal of how his Head could backstab him like that, he reached office the next day. His immediate supervisor, Sandeep, who had returned after an official trip, received Anish’s grief in full.

Once listening to Anish’s account fully, Sandeep asked if he had paid attention to the word “moderated” in his Head’s email. Looking at the quizzical look on Anish’s face, Sandeep explained that after discussing the ratings with the employees, the final collection of all the ratings is put before the board. And then they decide, depending on the funds available, what the rating of each employee should be. And one of the parts of the “moderation” is where the tenure in the company comes into play.

If it has been less than 6 months since an employee joined, then the maximum rating he/she will get is 2. If its more than 6 months and less than a year then the maximum rating he/she will get is 3.

i.e. what is being implied is even if a guy/lady works their butt off and are eligible for 5 rating (implying Outstanding performance), if he/she has joined just 5 months back, then he will get a rating 2 (implying below Average performance).

Companies & Corporations need to be aware of the message that they are sending out, for their each and every action has dozens of implied interpretations. While I give it that a company has to budget the money it hands out for performance bonuses, it should not be at the cost of lowering performance ratings. Say, for example, a company is a bit tight on financial front; it doesn’t mean that the highest rating that can be awarded can be lowered to 2 instead of 5. This will prove disastrous, as the company is clearly sending out a message that no matter how hard the employees work, they will be rated either average / below average.

Even more heinous model of performance rating is that of a bell curve, where it states that for every employee getting a 5, there has to be an employee getting a 1 rating to balance and form a beautiful bell curve. The messages that are clearly sent out are as follows:

• ·         All employees cannot perform above average, by rule
• ·         Even if all employees do perform above average, the company will lower your rating and declare your performance as below average or unworthy of accomplishment

The above mentioned problems arise from the urge to use a single index/scale to evaluate performance and also to hand out bonuses.

Rather, the two can be separated, and brought together through quantified rules. Say, for example, an employee can be awarded 5 for outstanding performance, but since his vertical is yet to make revenue for the company, bonus rating can be given as 2. Those companies obsessed with time spent with the company can also include the same as a factor to calculate bonus awarded to an employee. Then a combination of the above mentioned factors can be used to calculate bonus. (Example: (5/5 – performance rating)*(2/5 – bonus rating)*(11/12 – time associated with company)*(variable pay allocated in the CTC)

Lot of thought is required while drafting a company’s policies, for every policy clearly stands for a message a company believes in.

Sadly, the companies like the one Anish works for, will beat their chest about the transparency in their company while clearly ignoring the messages that are being sent out for the world to see.

As the year end came near, a questionnaire was sent out by the company to all its employees, along with a mail from CEO. Anish opens the email only to find that it’s a “Great Places to Work” survey with the CEO’s message opening with a one-liner “Let us make our company proud.”

I wonder what the results of the survey will turn out to be.