The phrase, "must be able to work with an Executive Assistant's PMS" was left in a finalized job description and eventually found itself placed in the permanent files. No one read the text, just processed the description as submitted.
The text from an incentive performance appraisal form read like an Average contribution, with no particular effort especially noteworthy or highlighted for special attention. One would naturally presume that the accompanied rating was "Average." Yet the employee was actually rated "Superior" and granted a large discretionary bonus award.
Is anyone reading this stuff?
Have you seen your own examples of this behavior? Paperwork processing viewed and handled as more important than what's actually written on the paper? As if the submittal of the form(s) is project completion itself; the rest is incidental, sort of a by-product.
This by-product (otherwise known as the text) could be replete with erroneous statements, inappropriate language, assumptions not approved by management, etc. Or you could have missing elements that are critical to the credibility of the form - and the process.
Sure, sure, I know the rationale ("excuse" sounds so lame). Sometimes you find so much effort invested in simply getting papers back from management (job descriptions, performance reviews, incentive assessments, etc.) that quality control goes out the window. It's like you'd be asking for more from them if you also expect the forms to make sense.
When processing large amounts of paper (focal date reviews, annual bonus awards, etc.) the first papers submitted likely do receive an appropriate scrutiny, simply because they're the first ones received and you have more time. But then it gets harder to keep pace as more papers keep coming in. And right before the due date there's likely to be a flood of last-minute entries. So eventually you find yourself merely processing the incoming mail, checking off the manager's name with a, "Yep, we got it."
Sound familiar?
The same problem arises when you expect the performance rating text (supportive material) to match the submitted score. That's reasonable though, isn't it? However, if you read the review without looking at the score, how many times would you be able to predict the answer? How often does the "Superior" rating read like "Average?"
Yet these gaffes do get processed, are read into the official record and personnel files, and are possibly the same documents that could see the light of day in a courtroom. Because no one bothered to read what was written?
What did you do?
If you did notice such inconsistencies (for lack of a less polite term), what did you do about it? Did you send the form(s) back with a polite, "try again," or perhaps you refused to process the reward payment until the offending manager got it right? Be honest now, often do you put on the policeman's hat and risk angering your management team?
And therein lies the problem. If you don't read the stuff, how do you know you're holding gold or lead? Quality or garbage? And you can't correct he unfairness of the system if you don't know which submitted form is wrong, and who committed that wrong. You're relegated to an administrator, a paper-pushing drone.
Out in the real world there are many managers who, in effect are saying, "how do I fill out this form to give Bob a superior rating?" That's what they care about, and even start the process with "Superior" already checked off.
But let's be fair. Often times corrective action is not that easy. Every HR pro worth their salt will tell you, it's all about picking your battles. It sounds easy to reject a manager's form submittal, but we all know the corrective response is often a matter of who is the offending party.
Sometimes, like with job descriptions and the PMS comment, you may have to make the corrections yourself.
But even a spotty record of enforcement would be an improvement over what happens all too often. And if they know you are reading what they write, perhaps that fact alone will serve to reduce the infractions.
Chuck Csizmar CCP is founder and Principal of CMC Compensation Group, providing global compensation consulting services to a wide variety of industries and non-profit organizations. He is also associated with several HR Consulting firms as a contributing consultant. With over 30 years Rewards experience Chuck is a broad based subject matter expert with a specialty in international and expatriate compensation. He lives in Central Florida (near The Mouse) and enjoys growing fruit and managing (?) a brood of cats.
Creative Commons image courtesy of Toms Baugis
Comments