The phrase, "Must be able to work with an Executive Assistant's PMS" was left in a finalized job description that eventually found itself placed in the permanent files. Apparently, no one had read the text, simply processed that the description was submitted and filed.
The text from an incentive performance appraisal form read like an Average employee contribution, with no work effort especially noteworthy or highlighted for special attention. One would naturally presume that the accompanied rating was in fact "Average." Yet the employee was rated "Superior" and granted a large discretionary bonus award.
Is Anyone Reading This Stuff?
Have you seen your own head-scratching examples of this behavior? Where paperwork processing is viewed and handled as more important than what's 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. Call it the “checkmark method” of business administration. “Yeah, we got the form.”
This by-product (otherwise known as the text) could be replete with erroneous or contradictory 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 (the word "excuse" sounds so lame). Sometimes you find so much effort invested in simply getting papers back from management (pulling teeth to get job descriptions, performance reviews, incentive assessments, etc.) that the luxury of quality control goes out the window. It's like you'd be asking for more from them if you also expected the forms to make sense.
When processing large amounts of paper (focal date reviews, annual bonus awards, etc.) the initial papers submitted likely do receive 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? It’s a well-known tactic of some managers to wait until the last minute to submit shoddy paperwork because they know they’ll get away with it.
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?" Odd though, that it doesn’t seem to work the other way around.
Yet these gaffes do get processed, are then 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, how often do you put on the policeman's hat and risk angering your management team? Or did you let the matter slide?
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 may even start the performance review process with "Superior" already checked off.
But let's be fair. Often 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 the rush-to-process that happens all too often. If managers know that you are reading what they write, perhaps that fact alone will serve to reduce the infractions.
Because when the skeleton eventually comes out of the closet, who do you think will face the heat?
Chuck Csizmar CCP is the 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 clowder of cats.
Creative Commons image "Paperwork," by Damian Gadal
Comments