For whom ‘the bell’ tolls – reflections on HR and ‘performance management’

When it comes to assessing the performance of individuals in organizations, it seems incredible that there are still a few HR professionals who believe that requiring managers to force-fit their people into a normal distribution (bell curve) represents high quality people management. And, to compound the offence, some still appear to view Jack Welch’s forced ranking approach (sometimes called "rank and yank") as the height of performance management practice.

With this in mind, a client manager once speculated on what might happen if he were to go into the local town and randomly select 100 people to work in the company. In such circumstances, he conceded that their comparative performance one year on might well be normally distributed. But that is not what he – or anyone else – actually does in practice!

Instead, as he was at pains to point out, a great deal of time and effort is spent in recruiting (and later promoting) people whose talents and personal qualities are judged to best suit the roles that they are expected to fill. Similarly extensive investment is made in their training and development, to further hone their knowledge and skills as they progress through the organization. And finally, to encourage, assist, and enable them to perform at their best, they are managed by people who have themselves passed through various schemes designed to equip them to deliver performance-enhancing leadership of one flavour or another. At least that is what those who design and impose the related HR processes, systems, and procedures supposedly set out to achieve.

So what if, after all this investment in mainstream HR practices, managers did indeed find that the comparative performance of their staff fitted the pattern of a normal distribution curve, and that the performance of a significant percentage of people (typically 10% according to the Welch ‘formula’) merited their removal? Perhaps the head of HR should view this as more of a commentary on his or her own performance than on that of those being so crudely assessed.

_________

NOTE:  I’ve referred here to the ludicrousness of this specific approach to the appraisal and management of people performance. However, the issue goes much deeper than this. Not least, the approach is rooted in assumptions about the nature of organization and management that fail to take account of the complex social dynamics of everyday human interaction. It’s through this ongoing process that organization is enacted and results are achieved in practice. This is a process in which people’s individual and collective performance is both enabled and constrained by the actions, inactions, and interactions of everyone else involved – not least those of their line managers.  So, if managers are to take seriously these real-world dynamics of organization, they need to begin by embracing a totally different – and more enlightened - conception of what it means to “manage performance”.

Comments

[Martin Brooks]

Chris I totally agree about the demotivating effect of the forced distribution. A problem compounded by the pseudo-scientific procedure to sort people into performance bands using incomplete evidence of achievement against inappropriate objectives that may be SMART but aren't wisely chosen. The only possible advantage might be that in a disloyal world of work where everyone is moving and shaking this creates an element of churn that allows fresh blood to enter an organisation. So in their words the 'bottom 10% are sacrificed however good they are individually to improve the gene pool - survival of the fittest.

[Chris Rodgers]

Thanks, Martin.

Not sure, though, how getting rid of 'good' people "improves the gene pool". It seems to me more likely that it would tend to lead to more cloning, compliance and 'keep your head down' behaviour.

Survival of the fittest equals survival of the 'best fit'. In this case, that means fitting in or risk being told to...