I hate curves,
not the ones on display but the one that most of the HR managers swear by in
their year end assessments – the bell curves. If all you’ve got is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail; no wonder HR managers eat, drink and sleep bell
curves. Recently I was asked to evaluate and suggest the performance appraisal
system of a large sized company and what an experience it turned out to be. I
realized that most of the HR managers are as possessive about their ‘bell
curves’ as Ms. Kardashian is about her B&B (even Microsoft
is; – every time I mis-spell her name, it gives me a
prompt!)
In the company, I
noticed that the actual break up talent literally followed a bell
curve:
o
Approx. 20% are A level
performers
o
Approx. 70% are B level
performers
o
Approx. 10% are C level
performers
Although A-level performers were (still are hopefully) adding a lot of value to the company, it was the B level performers who were the heart and soul of the company and are a very interesting bit. The normal hypothesis is that the company is mediocre, because the B level performers are mediocre. However in this case I feel the hypothesis is not true.
A-level
performers were small in number and they were relatively new in the company as
compared to the B level performers. Also I believed that A-level performers were
not likely to be the ones who will stay very long with the company and build up institutional knowledge that is so essential in any business. This makes the B
level performers invaluable, as their knowledge base of the company is very
deep rooted.
These B level
performers were with the company for long and know the cycles the company has
gone through; they understood the company ever better than some of the A level
performers. Surprisingly these B-level performers tend to pursue organizational
goals over personal ones because they value stability both for themselves and
for the company. This fact came out through observation and discussion with
a diverse set of people. Irony is that although these B-level performers exhibit
such extraordinary patience with career development still because of the
compulsions of rating systems we tend to overlook their contribution.
Besides
recognizing and rewarding A-level performers, very few companies have an
explicit strategy for recognizing B players, on whom so much of the company’s long-term
success depends. Even small gestures go a long way in building the recognition
and sense of achievement among B-level employees.
Most of the HODs
are themselves A-level players and therefore tend to identify with A-level
players in their teams (which is not a bad thing). This is another reason why
B-level players are sometimes (in fact most of the times) not given stretch
assignments. This also explains the concern of under utilization of employees in
certain departments. This under-utilization has a spiraling affect; the
employees who are not given stretch assignments grow frustrated that their
seniors are not really interested in their career development. Because of
mediocre to poor ratings they also don’t believe that HR will represent their
best interests.
Possible solution: I suggested to the
management a mentor-ship program for B-level employees. The program can be structured as formal or
informal mentor-ship wherein the senior- junior or peer to peer mentor-mentee
relationship can be formed to align the aspirations, passions and skills of
these B-level employees with the overall objectives of the company. HODs can
act as mentors and it can be structured as a voluntary program.
This isn’t just
about promotion or increments—it’s much more about developing the potential of
the employees who, I definitely feel, form the core in any company’s scheme of
long term things.
As for HR
managers – their obsession with ‘bells and whistles’ is not likely to
fade away anytime soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment