We continue with our exploration of some of the foundational misconceptions underlying performance appraisal as it's widely practiced. last time we sketched how a rhetorical fallacy known as the fallacy of composition, which lies at the heart of performance appraisal strategy, prevents performance management systems from attaining their stated goals. We also examined the reification error, and what I called the "myth of identifiable contributions" and the "myth of omniscient supervision."
Let's now take a look at the effects of uniform quotas. In some organizations, as part of the annual review process, supervisors receive quotas for each grade of performance appraisal — a so-called "vitality curve." For example, one quota system, known as the 20-70-10 rule, recommends quotas of 20% for Exceeds Expectations, 70% for Meets Expectations, and 10% for Needs Improvement. When a rule such as this is applied uniformly to all organizational units, madness results.
The problems with uniform quotas are many. Here are just four of them.
- The heterogeneity of capability
- Typically, there is little uniformity of capability across all organizational units. Most units have a mix of people performing at various levels, but some units consist almost exclusively of top performers, while others consist almost exclusively of mediocre performers. The system of uniform quotas compels a supervisor of mostly top performers to rate 10% of his or her supervisees as "Needs Improvement." And the system also compels a supervisor of mostly mediocre performers to rate 20% of them as "Exceeds Expectations."
- Because of the quota, someone who is a top performer relative to the entire organization might be rated as "Needs Improvement" relative to the group of which he or she is a member. And a performer who is actually in the "Meets Expectations" group relative to the entire organization might be rated as "Exceeds Expectations" relative to the group of which he or she is a member.
- Consequently, in some cases, relative to the organization as a whole, a top performer might be rated lower than a mediocre performer. The obvious injustice of this result can contribute to cynicism, toxic conflict, and elevated voluntary termination rates.
- The heterogeneity of the need for capability
- Most enterprises don't need top performers in every role. To recruit and retain top performers when they aren't needed constitutes a waste of enterprise resources. Moreover, top performers need challenges and opportunities to demonstrate creativity. In some roles in some organizations, those desires are positively unhelpful. In some roles, the enterprise needs only reliable, routine levels of performance.
- Despite this, uniform application of the 20-70-10 rule, for example, assumes implicitly that it is desirable to have 20% of the people in each and every unit assessed as top performers. For many roles, this assumption is in contradiction to enterprise needs.
- Serial attrition of talent
- Some units perform work for which there is only a limited pool of capable potential hires. Because of the quota system, when the organization mis-appraises top performers as "Meets Expectations," or worse, those affected might voluntarily terminate if they believe they are being treated unfairly. They do so because the elevated demand for people with their skills means they can readily find alternative employment.
- In this way, uniform quotas applied year after year eventually deplete any units that depend on people with rare and marketable skills and talent.
- A zero-sum game
- Finally, quota systems tend to create environments favorable to demoralization and inter-employee conflict, mainly because they create a zero-sum game. A zero-sum game is a mathematical construct that describes group processes in which the group members are pitted against each other. The total of gains of value summed across all participants is always equal to the total of losses of value summed across them.
- For example, if you're working in a group in which you have a clear sense of who the favored 20% are, and you know you won't be among them, why would you go to great lengths to deliver excellent performance? Indeed, why would you even stay in that position? And inversely, if you were certain that you were among the favored 20%, why would you deliver excellent performance? After all, you know that your supervisor needs to report not less than 20% of his or her supervisees as Exceeds Expectations. Moreover, if you aren't among the favored 20%, and if you try to gain a place among the favored 20%, and they learn of your intentions, they might be motivated to try to prevent you from succeeding. The whole mess is just a nightmare for teamwork.
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Critical Thinking at Work:
- Finger Puzzles and "Common Sense"
- Working on complex projects, we often face a choice between "just do it" and "wait, let's
think this through first." Choosing to just do it can seem to be the shortest path to the goal,
but it rarely is. It's an example of a Finger Puzzle.
- Unintended Consequences
- Sometimes, when we solve problems, the solutions create new problems that can be worse than the problems
we solve. Why does this happen? How can we limit this effect?
- Overconfidence at Work
- Confidence in our judgments and ourselves is essential to success. Confidence misplaced — overconfidence
— leads to trouble and failure. Understanding the causes and consequences of overconfidence can
be most useful.
- Cognitive Biases and Influence: II
- Most advice about influencing others offers intentional tactics. Yet, the techniques we actually use
are often unintentional, and we're therefore unaware of them. Among these are tactics exploiting cognitive
- Be Choosier About Job Offers: II
- An unfortunate outcome of job searches occurs when a job seeker feels forced to accept an offer that
isn't a good fit. Sometimes financial pressures are so severe that the seeker has little choice. But
financial pressures are partly perceptual. Here's how to manage feeling that pressure.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 28: Checklists: Conventional or Auditable
- Checklists help us remember the steps of complex procedures, and the order in which we must execute them. The simplest form is the conventional checklist. But when we need a record of what we've done, we need an auditable checklist. Available here and by RSS on February 28.
- And on March 6: Six More Insights About Workplace Bullying
- Some of the lore about dealing with bullies at work isn't just wrong — it's harmful. It's harmful in the sense that applying it intensifies the bullying. Here are six insights that might help when devising strategies for dealing with bullies at work. Example: Letting yourself be bullied is not a thing. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info