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"...
Nice.
I get so frustrated when managers hide behind excuses such as "budget issues" in order to not manage their people properly. Grow a backbone already!
Posted by: HR Minion | July 17, 2008 at 12:52 PM
There is another reason why some managers give 3% to everyone rather than differentiate - they have all average performers. It is a misperception that great performers exist is all areas of the company. And the smaller the entity the more possible this scenario is. In fact I have had managers who wanted all average performers - they genuinely felt their area was better served with employees who could do the job well, but did not have the interest or aspiration to do any better or do anything else. Yes, a department of dependable, reliable, content, long service plodders. In this scenario differentiating pay increases is inappropriate and counter to the objective. I don't recommend this approach but we should only differentiate pay when true performance differences exist. If they don't and you're not happy with this situation then you need to shake up the unit, probably starting at the top.
Posted by: Joanne Bintliff-Ritchie | July 23, 2008 at 02:56 PM