In the first two parts (Part I here and Part II here) of this blog post about Promotion-Performance debate we looked at the question of whether Promotion is actually a reward for performance. The dichotomy comes in when you don't understand that performance is not a sufficient condition for promotion. To rephrase - it more appropriate to how people should see it... "Promotion is not causally related to performance" or "Performance is not the cause of promotion". It maybe a pre condition or given but the real precedence is good fit on capability or competencies and whether the organization is growing, whether there are roles in the organization for the individual to move. That is why companies known for their HR practices actually have multiple career path options for their employees.
Hence we should look at the fallout of not communicating in clear and simple terms why someone did not get promoted. Most of your A raters who leave because they did not get promoted after being considered or were looked over for promotion could actually have been retained if only a bit of effort was put in to communicate the right reasons.
Where HR teams and the managers fail, is their ability to communicate this aspect of a one sided relationship existing between performance and promotion. Also at stake are ego, self-esteem and motivation all a fall out of the perceptions about not being promoted that are in the minds of the people. Also the organizations often leave people who are not promoted to their own devices in interpreting feedback and finding ways to achieve their career goals.
Vague feedback from managers like "You need to be a bit more hard boiled" or "You're just about there" add to the confusion in the mind of he employee and on top of it he / she is again worried that X got through the job but not me adding to the anxiety. This reference group effect only complicates the perceived injustice or aberration in the system that people then attribute to the the whole process of promotion.
There is always some fuzziness maintained by organizations on the promotion criteria and how those decisions are made however it is generally a fit perspective that is considered. What capabilities do you need for the role being considered and the degree of fit which the individual brings to the table. We will continue to live with that fuzziness and cannot expect it as a problem that will go away sooner or later. Of course if we don't want performance differentiation and everyone gets the same rating we'll have to wait for those complete "Robot Teams" whose synchronous delivery of goods and services will be very different from the human element. And of course you won't have to motivate them except recharge or maybe at times tighten their nuts and bolts.
Hence we should look at the fallout of not communicating in clear and simple terms why someone did not get promoted. Most of your A raters who leave because they did not get promoted after being considered or were looked over for promotion could actually have been retained if only a bit of effort was put in to communicate the right reasons.
Where HR teams and the managers fail, is their ability to communicate this aspect of a one sided relationship existing between performance and promotion. Also at stake are ego, self-esteem and motivation all a fall out of the perceptions about not being promoted that are in the minds of the people. Also the organizations often leave people who are not promoted to their own devices in interpreting feedback and finding ways to achieve their career goals.
Vague feedback from managers like "You need to be a bit more hard boiled" or "You're just about there" add to the confusion in the mind of he employee and on top of it he / she is again worried that X got through the job but not me adding to the anxiety. This reference group effect only complicates the perceived injustice or aberration in the system that people then attribute to the the whole process of promotion.
There is always some fuzziness maintained by organizations on the promotion criteria and how those decisions are made however it is generally a fit perspective that is considered. What capabilities do you need for the role being considered and the degree of fit which the individual brings to the table. We will continue to live with that fuzziness and cannot expect it as a problem that will go away sooner or later. Of course if we don't want performance differentiation and everyone gets the same rating we'll have to wait for those complete "Robot Teams" whose synchronous delivery of goods and services will be very different from the human element. And of course you won't have to motivate them except recharge or maybe at times tighten their nuts and bolts.
No comments:
Post a Comment