I wanted to throw this thought to know what colleagues and friends think on the issue of handling the appraisal of a employee or team mate!
There are so many extraneous factors that impact the results at the workplace. The external environment, the client decisions or otherwise.. the list can be long depending on which space or industry one is in. The business results are certainly a result of these factors, despite how best your team or employee gave his efforts to achieve the business objectives.
The general attitude (am not sure if attitude is the best choice of word) is this : you gave in your best, even more than your best; yet you also know that things did not pan out as expected in the market place, and thus our business division or organisation has not been able to get to the desired revenues or spot in the market place.
So, as a policy, we have decided that we will not have any hikes for any of our teammates this year. I know you gave in your best; please continue to do so, and sure, the next year will be very good, thus making sure you will be amply rewarded.
This is just a hypothetical situation - however I am sure that this has been seen in real life between a lot of us, in HR or otherwise.
Is this the right method or way - given the emphasis that people are the biggest asset, and also that organisations are here for the long run, and will do well with good or potential performing employees. Organisations by their virtue are to invest in people, the right people, and keep them for the long run.
However, such an approach as above is just the opposite of conventional sense would have it.
Why must an employee who has given his best, and whom the organisation thinks is a future potential buy the fact that he will not be rewarded owing to factors which were not in his control at all?!
The employee or the team mate, has given his best, and in fact more than his best. If this is agreed, then is it a tenable argument that we will not as a policy reward him, but he ought to perform the same way, for another one year in anticipation of a 'good year' - which will be again dependent on extraneous factors, so many of them....
Whatever be our claims that money is not the singular motivator, its a fact established that the annual increments are one sure way of the employees judging if they should bet on the organisation for the long run or not. And this will more so in the case of above average performers.
With that being the case, does a promise of a future reward take away the import of rewarding the past, with extraneous factors as a reason?
What are your thoughts? How can HR and business leadership think in such a situation to ensure continued employee engagement??
It is my belief that a great promise for the future never absolve the organisation of its duty to reward past and present performance.
There are so many extraneous factors that impact the results at the workplace. The external environment, the client decisions or otherwise.. the list can be long depending on which space or industry one is in. The business results are certainly a result of these factors, despite how best your team or employee gave his efforts to achieve the business objectives.
The general attitude (am not sure if attitude is the best choice of word) is this : you gave in your best, even more than your best; yet you also know that things did not pan out as expected in the market place, and thus our business division or organisation has not been able to get to the desired revenues or spot in the market place.
So, as a policy, we have decided that we will not have any hikes for any of our teammates this year. I know you gave in your best; please continue to do so, and sure, the next year will be very good, thus making sure you will be amply rewarded.
This is just a hypothetical situation - however I am sure that this has been seen in real life between a lot of us, in HR or otherwise.
Is this the right method or way - given the emphasis that people are the biggest asset, and also that organisations are here for the long run, and will do well with good or potential performing employees. Organisations by their virtue are to invest in people, the right people, and keep them for the long run.
However, such an approach as above is just the opposite of conventional sense would have it.
Why must an employee who has given his best, and whom the organisation thinks is a future potential buy the fact that he will not be rewarded owing to factors which were not in his control at all?!
The employee or the team mate, has given his best, and in fact more than his best. If this is agreed, then is it a tenable argument that we will not as a policy reward him, but he ought to perform the same way, for another one year in anticipation of a 'good year' - which will be again dependent on extraneous factors, so many of them....
Whatever be our claims that money is not the singular motivator, its a fact established that the annual increments are one sure way of the employees judging if they should bet on the organisation for the long run or not. And this will more so in the case of above average performers.
With that being the case, does a promise of a future reward take away the import of rewarding the past, with extraneous factors as a reason?
What are your thoughts? How can HR and business leadership think in such a situation to ensure continued employee engagement??
It is my belief that a great promise for the future never absolve the organisation of its duty to reward past and present performance.
