Inspiration from Performance Appraisal

Recently, I saw a story on the Internet that black bears and brown bears like to eat honey and live by keeping bees. They each have a beehive and keep the same number of bees. One day, they decided to compete to see whose bees produced more honey.  

The black bear thought that the yield of honey depends on the daily "visits" of bees to flowers. So it bought an expensive performance management system for measuring bee visits. In its view, the number of flowers that bees come into contact with is their workload. After each quarter, the black bear announces the workload of each bee. Brown bears and black bears have different thoughts. It believes that the key to how much honey bees can produce is how much nectar they collect every day - the more nectar they collect, the more honey they produce. So it straightforwardly told the bees that it was competing with the black bear to see who produced the most honey, and set up a reward system to reward the bee that harvested the most nectar in the month. A year has passed, and two bears are checking the competition results. The honey of the black bear is less than half that of the brown bear.  

It can be seen that although the evaluation system of the black bear is very precise, its final performance evaluation is not directly linked to rewards and punishments, and the work goals of the bees are not clear. From the beginning of the competition, the brown bear set clear goals and developed assessment and incentive measures, which enabled it to win the game.  

Currently, many companies have implemented performance evaluation management measures. The methods, content, and application of performance evaluation have always been topics of discussion for managers. With the inspiration of the "Two Bears Competition", I believe that enterprise performance evaluation should achieve "four combinations".  

One is to determine the assessment mode based on actual conditions. We need to establish a basic model of "daily assessment as the main line, combined with year-end comprehensive evaluation". The department head conducts daily assessments on a monthly basis, mainly focusing on the employee's attendance rate, work effectiveness, work attitude, skill level, compliance with rules and regulations, etc. And quantify the assessment results according to different job positions with different focuses as scores: production positions focus on assessing work effectiveness and labor attitude; Management positions focus on assessing work efficiency and quality. At the same time, it is necessary to fully attach importance to democratic evaluation and assessment work, so that performance evaluation has the greatest breadth and authenticity. At the end of each year, employee representatives conduct democratic evaluations of employees in various departments from the four aspects of "morality, ability, diligence, and performance", correcting and avoiding problems such as bias and subjectivism in daily assessments.

The second is to determine incentive measures based on the hierarchy. Classify the annual assessment results into four levels: A, B, C, and D. A level is excellent, B level is good, C level is basically qualified, and D level is unqualified. The distribution ratio of each assessment grade is evenly distributed: the A-level grade is controlled within 20%, the B-level grade is controlled within 50%, and the C-level grade is controlled around 30%. In order to make the assessment more rational, there is no specific ratio for D-level grades, and a direct classification clause is formulated. Employees who meet the conditions for direct classification to D-level shall be directly classified according to relevant regulations. And the assessment results are linked to employees' salary, selection, job level, rewards, learning, honors, promotion, and other aspects in all aspects, with a particular emphasis on the strength of linking with salary, stimulating employees' work desire, and making it an incentive lever.  

The third is to implement performance feedback in conjunction with improvement. Establish a monthly regular evaluation system. Publicize the daily assessment results in our unit, and the department head will evaluate each employee based on their actual monthly performance, soliciting their requirements and wishes for their own development, so that employees can know their ranking in our unit in the first time, ensuring that the assessment is based on facts. At the same time, targeted organizational assistance is provided to make employees feel satisfied and willing to accept the assessment results, which is more conducive to the timely improvement of underperforming employees. The implementation of daily performance evaluation in each department should be taken as an important basis for measuring the management level and achievements of department leaders. Departments whose performance evaluation work has not been implemented effectively or has obvious errors shall not be rated as outstanding by their department leaders, nor shall the department be rated as an advanced collective. 

The fourth is to improve the assessment process in combination with fairness. We need to change the assessment mode of the human resources department that sticks to the bottom. Divide the year-end comprehensive evaluation process into three parts.The trade union exercises the power of assessment and execution. The personnel department exercises the power of assessment and accounting. The disciplinary inspection and supervision departments exercise the power of assessment and supervision, supervise the entire process of year-end comprehensive evaluation. At the same time, strengthen the education of assessment organization personnel. Make organizers not only qualified recorders and accurate accountants, but also counselors for underperforming employees and notaries in assessments. Once found to have engaged in favoritism and fraud, serious measures will be taken.