Can the fallacies of a performance appraisal be rectified?
Let us face it: no appraisal is really objective or transparent. Am I dropping a bombshell by making this claim? Maybe. But I don’t intend to be politically correct by saying something to the contrary. I have known in the many years of my experience as an HR professional that appraisals have been so lopsided that it wouldn’t perhaps be wrong if it were called by another name: appeasement!
When the reporting manager has a different view about the candidate, this gives us space for ‘negotiation’. For sure, we have a strong reason to refute the candidate’s high self-appraisal score. But what about occasions on which the manager too had the same positive assessment of the candidate?
Does the deserving candidate get the raise?
In my experience, it is almost invariably the case that the candidate chosen for the raise is one who is either of these: the manager’s blue-eyed boy, or the talented candidate who is planning to leave, or the one who makes a noise. Seldom, in fact, almost never, is the silent performer rewarded. Do you agree?
What are we here for?
So, what should we HR professionals do? Of course, it goes without saying –again, let us accept the fact –that it is management that has the final say. If we are just mute spectators who are there to do little else other than the paperwork, do we justify the high-sounding, pompous labels our designations announce?
Choices we have
What do we do when we in HR know that the slogging, dedicated, silent guy does all the work and the dashing, rabble-rousing, “management’s favorite” gets all the credit, and worse, a disproportionate pay hike? Should we mention to the managers that they are wrong? Should we hang our heads in shame?
What do you think? Am I being too cynical of our profession? Or am I being brutally honest? Or am I prodding our collective conscience, if it exists, and if it does, whatever that may mean?
Apr 24 2013, 12:47 AM EDT by