Why do socialists love weak performance management cultures? Because they de-emphasize the individual - especially the performers - and make everyone look the same. Next thing you know, national GDP is flat, the best jobs are in government and it takes 60 minutes of standing in line to get a loaf of bread... It's like the Soup Nazi, no tolerance for deviation, even the positive kind....
Well... Maybe that rant is a bit overstated. But compensation pro Ann Bares of Compensation Force knows a 
lame trend when she sees it, linking weak performance management to the clustering of merit pay towards the mean. Why do managers give in and provide a 3% increase to all their direct reports? From Ann's List:
"A lack of confidence in the underlying performance management program and its results, so that management is hesitant to differentiate pay treatment based on performance assessments.
An unwillingness to award smaller (or even "zero") increases to workers at the bottom of the performance ladder, which ultimately takes money from the merit budget which could have bolstered the increases of top performers.
The lingering presence of a culture and philosophy that dictates treating everyone the same (despite rhetoric about paying for performance)."
Love Ann's list. My take? Managers at all levels hate confrontation, so much so, that they will avoid providing lower merit rewards to poor-performing employees so they don't have to deal with delivering the rejection. For the high performing employees? Why not deliver a great review and deliver the standard 3%, then blame it on the "budget", or use my favorite tag line - managers using "they" to talk about the company, as in "They only let me give 3% increases"...
Check out Ann's blog ASAP. I added it to my ultra-exclusive blogroll on the right (aka "Sweet Links"), so click through and check it out early and often...
Number 2 especially sounds familiar. I've seen a number of coworkers quit after receiving little to no merit raises. Turnover creates pain for managers, even when low performers leave, so most figure it's worth creating a little ill will among top performers to avoid personal pain. (At least how I've seen it...)
Posted by: bruce | June 28, 2007 at 08:25 AM
I reckon you've nailed it.
Few people like confrontation and in large companies, people can always pass the blame onto 'the system'.
For the same reason, many people get away with performing below par for years.
Posted by: Rick | June 29, 2007 at 12:13 PM