Performance Decisions

Over the last year I have seen two cycles of rating moderation discussion and have had the opportunity to chart out the rating distribution for a fairly large team over a bell curve.

There are a few questions which I have been actively trying to find answers to:

• Bell curve is relative by nature. What is the process one should follow when proposing a rating for an individual?
• What is the process one should follow in a moderation discussion to modify the rating of an individual?

I might have found some tentative answers.

First proposed rating

The 1^st proposed rating should be on absolute scale. But for that to happen one first needs to have the parameters for performance measurement in place. Let me elaborate. Let us assume that we have a 5 point rating scale (P1,P2,P3,P4,P5), with P5 as the highest rating and P1 as the lowest rating. You should first decide what performance would correspond to what rating on an absolute scale. One possible set of parameters can be:

• P5 – Significantly exceeds expectations on all Performance Indicators (PIs);
• P4 – Significantly exceeds expectations on critical PIs and meets expectations on other PIs;
• P3 – meets expectations on all PIs;
• P2 – meets expectations on critical PIs but falls short of expectations on other PIs ;
• P1 – unacceptable performance

This understanding of the parameters for performance measurement should be shared by all members who would be present for a moderation meeting. This would then become a common language people would share in the room.

Deadlock

Let us assume that there arises a situation where a rating needs to be moderated. On what basis would the ratings be moderated? I can think of only 2 possible reasons:

• Similar levels of performance but varying degrees of difficulty of the environment within which the performance was achieved.
• A higher level of results by 1 individual as compared to the other. E.g. – if we have a deadlock for a P5 rating (both individuals have significantly exceeded expectations and under similar environmental conditions), “Who has achieved higher results?” would be the differentiator.

Efforts or Environmental Understanding?

What about the effort an individual has put in? Should not that be factored in?

Efforts are taken in a certain context. These efforts should be factored into the evaluation of the environment within which results were achieved. Efforts by themselves would not provide you actionable data.

Let me elaborate. Let us say there are 2 individuals who have similar levels of performance, under comparable difficulty of environmental conditions but one individual has put in more effort than the other. Can we say that the individual who has put in lesser effort should be given a lower rating? I don’t think so. I can’t penalize him for finding a smarter way of doing work. On the other hand can we say that the individual who has put in higher effort should be given a lower rating? I don’t think so too. I can’t penalize him for doing his work in a less smarter way when he is got comparable results.

Hence the conditions/environment within which results have been achieved are a factor for decision making, but efforts by themselves are not.

-

Sourav