This is the time of the year, when appraisals happen. The news will be out - who performed and who lagged . Rewards, increments, promotions will be awaited by one and all. At the end of it - some would be more happy than others. HR department would tick mark the annual ritual as having been completed with a sigh of relief.
Look at this process closely. What will be used is the Performance Data. The larger organisations would flaunt their inflallibility - because of Performance Management System infrastructure. The smaller ones would use some measures, scraped from different parts of the organisation. Given this input, the supervising managers are likely to conduct an appraisal based on objective and irrefutable facts as reflected in the results. The employee would get into this meeting prepared for a one sided discussion revolving around the What of Performance - the hard facts. He or she, may not have the heart and the courage to highlight the How of the performance. Such discussions would be a matter of one upmanship between the boss and the subordinate resulting in disgruntlement and potential attrition.
The above process has an error bias and hence it is likely that a high performer in one year does not appear to be a consistent performer the next year. One major aspect is the lack of exploration of the "how" part in a scientific manner. Fortunately tools are available to open this area - e.g PDI Ninth House has a tool called Talent View of Leadership Performance. In addition to the performance data a 360 degree tool digging out the how of the performance can supplement the performance data. Such a tool can reflect the challenges in the role, degree of difficulty, situations faced etc.With these inputs the appraisal process is more scientific and can result in a better buy-in from the employee on the feedback.
Any performance appraisal must neccessarily focus on the employee and more rigorous and transparent the process, the better is the quality of outcome. Employees would look forward to their own development and the organisation can expect better retention figures. The reward and recognition system will earn credibility and aspirational value.
When all CEO's are saying that processes and technology can be replicated , and people are the only differentiator, does it make sense to take short cuts in the process ?
