The Manager & The Performance Strategy

Once upon a time there was a Manager who was required by Human Resources to comply with a performance management process. The Manager, who valued his job, was willing to do this. He attended training sessions, and was shown how to write SMART goals, measure success, and rate his employees on a three point scale for performance and behavior: Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, and Does Not Meet Expectations. The Manager was familiar with the strategy, having employed similar strategies in a previous company. The Manager complied, had regular meetings with his employees to discuss performance and behavior, and his employees knew what to expect when merit increases and incentive bonuses were distributed once a year.

And so it went for three years. Some of the finer details of the performance strategy changed, but by and large it remained the same. Most employees met their goals, a few employees exceeded their goals, and a couple employees did not meet their goals. According to Human Resources, there was a Predictable Distribution: of all employees, 70% met their goals, 10% exceeded their goals, and 20% did not meet their goals. Look for this distribution, Human Resources said, and use it as a Guide. If there are a lot of employees who exceed their goals, maybe the goals weren't stiff enough, so it was important to make sure the goals were well written.

Near the end of the fourth year several Managers met and listed all their employees ion a sheet of paper. The Managers ranked each employee from highest performing to lowest performing. There was much discussion. Managers hated this yearly task.

When they were finished and felt comfortable that all the employees were ranked correctly, the Managers sent the list to the managers a level above themselves. The new set of managers incorporated the list into their own and rolled the list up to the next level of managers. This went on until the list reached to top of the department.

The Big Manager looked at the list and said "12% of these employees exceeded their goals. That just can't be. That violates the 10% guide. The employee in the lowest spots of the 12% will be forced into a lower ranking." And so it was.

Then the Big Manager said, "Now there 74% of our employees have met their goals this year. That just can't be. That violates the 70% rule. The employees in the lowest spots of the 74% will be forced into a lower ranking." And so it was.

The Big Manager looked at the list with it's neat, tidy, predictable performance distribution, and said, "Roll this final list down to all the managers to communicate to their employees." And so they did.

The Manager (remember him?) looked at the list and sat heavily in his not-quite ergonomic office chair with the adjustable lower-back support. He saw that one employee he'd given a rating of Meets Expectations for performance, and Exceeds Expectations for behavior, had been bumped down to Meets Expectations for behavior. Another employee he'd given a rating of Meets Expectations for performance and behavior had been bumped down to a Does Not Meet expectations for performance and behavior.

The Manager cried foul. "This employee is a perfectly good employee and his performance and behavior is well within the 'meets expectations' for his role and time on the job." The manager knew that merit increases and incentive bonuses were calculated on the ratings and the ranking. Neither employee would received the recognition they deserved for a job done well.

The Manager did not live happily ever after. In fact, the Manager lost all faith in what should have been a fair system of performance-based recognition. But then, the Manager is naive in the ways of The Big Manager, and hopelessly idealistic.

The End.