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.
In another example, the text from an incentive performance appraisal form read like an Average or Satisfactory performance effort, with no particular achievement especially noteworthy or highlighted for attention. One would presume therefore that the accompanied rating was in fact "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? When paperwork processing is 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 to the process itself.
We've all heard the rationale ("excuse" sounds so lame). Sometimes you find so much effort invested in simply getting papers returned from management (job descriptions, performance reviews, incentive assessments, etc.) that quality control becomes a secondary consideration. 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 incentive awards, etc.) the papers submitted early 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 (the 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 took the time 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; how 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 whether you're holding gold or lead? Quality or garbage? And you can't correct the 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 isn't 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 submitted form, but we all know the official 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 the paper pushing that happens all too often. If managers 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. 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 lejoe
My July 2011 article detailing a Divorce Pay policy http://www.compensationcafe.com/2011/07/divorce-pay-a-modest-proposal-for-a-new-policy.html was inspired by exactly such a case, Chuck. I buried that policy in a draft proposed management manual for a global design/build architechural firm, to test their review process. The Employment Manager called me to inquire about the policy as she reviewed the draft, asking if it could be made retroactive.
In an earlier life, I reviewed all MBO evaluations, sending private notes offering remedial steps to those who bungled their appraisal documentation but forwarding occasional compliments on excellent process up the chain of command. It really focused attention on that vital element of supervisory responsiblity.
Posted by: E. James (Jim) Brennan | 05/30/2013 at 02:36 PM
The instances of issues like this are too numerous too count. They extend from the individual and directed comments listed above to full plan documentation issues. This is often made worse by the larger percentage of compensation professionals who have not read the legal documents supporting their incentive plans, commission structures, equity compensation plans and performance review instructions.
I have done "hand polls" at live events on this topic for more than a decade. In only one instance did more than 10% of the population at a presentation agree that they had read all active plan documentation cover to cover.
Posted by: Dan Walter | 05/30/2013 at 07:47 PM
Chuck - The problem with the performance review system you describe is the problem with the performance review system you describe! Forget for a moment that this kind of cyclical bureaucracy serves no real purpose other than some kind of outdated CYA exercise. Forget also that what you are suggesting is exactly the kind of transactional BS that keeps HR from adding real value.
Editing review material is the worst kind of HR activity on a number of levels. It reinforces the HR 'police' stigma, and invites all sorts of confrontational and passive aggressive behavior. It's a huge time suck, with no real returns for the effort, and it can lead to management transparency when it comes to who is responsible for what.
And don't lay that 'liability/compliance' excuse on this issue. The likelihood of some agency review is somewhere between slim and none.
Is anybody reading this stuff? Insofar as HR is concerned, I hope not.
Posted by: John A Bushfield | 05/31/2013 at 05:34 AM
Dude, don't even get me started on this. I run into most commonly with JDs where one job is supposed to be "bigger" than the other but they read the same. I send back to be updated but it's such an epidemic I just kicked off a company-wide project to address it. We'll see how that goes.
Posted by: Joe | 05/31/2013 at 06:42 AM
Couldn't agree more. The issue is that in the performance based organisation, there is an increasingly tight wiring between PD/PM rating and pay outcome. We work to "distribution guidelines" (curves that work as a whipping board) in-advertantly making the entire focus - usually in a ridiculously tight time frame - being on the final rating; not the performance feedback and review. Too often the rating is submitted to consistency checks and reviews and will probably pass through, with the actual review to be written later on - that's the reality in large performance driven organisations and it costs them dearly (attrition, non engagement and disengagement, disillusionment, low morale, and lip service to actually managing for performance....and development!).
Posted by: David | 06/02/2013 at 07:14 AM