How to Set Up a Performance Evaluation System
4 January 2012
Read by 4060 persons
There is no fixed system; the best one adapts to the nature of the business. Regular meetings are necessary given the rapidly changing environment.
For many companies, the annual "big talk" is approaching. This face-to-face meeting is never a mere formality. It often determines the credibility of the employee, but also of the manager, the level of salary increase, and even the future of employees. In this area, it is a less widespread practice, mainly implemented by subsidiaries of multinationals and a few large national private groups, entities with a well-structured human resources management system. Everywhere, the objectives assigned to this tool are practically the same: to compare achievements to objectives, to reward, to define a progress plan for the employee, including through training, etc.
However, the approach can vary from one company to another. Therefore, La Vie éco brought together HR directors and consultants to reflect on the best ways to design an effective evaluation system.
In most companies, the performance evaluation interview is a one-off action that usually takes place before the end of the year. However, some managers, like Aicha Beymik, HR Director of Manpower Morocco, refuse to limit themselves to this formal moment. In her opinion, "evaluation must be periodic. With the current times, how can you have visibility over a year, or sometimes even over three or six months? I think these moments should be frequent to allow for course correction in case of setbacks." Abdelillah Sefrioui, an HR consultant, agrees, emphasizing that "the frequency depends on the company and its environment, and that there can be ongoing evaluations without formalization."
For his part, Amine Jamai, consultant and CEO of Valoris Conseil, also raises the question of the usefulness of a performance evaluation interview. "Obviously, it's to avoid repeating the failures of the previous year, but also to see the future better. Unfortunately, I have rarely seen courageous evaluations that provide good feedback to the person being evaluated. It's either complacency or a settling of scores." Indeed, as Mr. Jamai suggests, the performance evaluation interview is a management tool designed not only to assess the professional and behavioral performance of an employee, but also to define ways to improve their contribution to the company's performance. It is not a rigid rating system. It is not a simple informal meeting during which the employee passively endures the hierarchical impulses of their superior. The evaluation is based on an exchange. On the one hand, the evaluator aims, in particular, to take stock of skills mapping, improve interpersonal relationships, assess promotion possibilities, and clarify individual objectives, in relation to those of the company. On the other hand, the interview allows the employee to gather information on the quality of their performance, clarify the definition of their mission(s), discuss their career plan, and their compensation…
The ideal is to give 70% of the speaking time to the employee because it's about the evaluator "listening," says Ms. Beymik. Abdelillah Sefrioui adds that "these annual moments are also important because we don't only focus on the evaluator-employee relationship, but also on the problems affecting the company in general."
Any appreciation system requires prerequisites
In any case, it is a process integrated into human resources development. The participants agree that the usefulness of evaluation is undeniable if it is well prepared and correctly conducted. This is why such a project is doomed to failure if it does not obtain the buy-in of the entire company, they warn. "It is useful to explain it, define the criteria that best suit the company's context, and train both evaluators and those being evaluated," advises Aziz Taib, HR Director of Stroc Industries. He adds that "there must be a company culture that allows the interview to be generalized but, above all, well understood by all those concerned." For example, some groups circulate performance appraisal interview guides at all levels. These documents emphasize objectives, the rating system, the main points to discuss, and the different stages of the process.
On the other hand, Aziz Taib suggests going further by involving certain people in setting up the system best suited to the company. "Involving some people in proposing or integrating key skills into the evaluation makes it more acceptable to employees," he says. For example, having the agreement of employee representatives, or the union, on the method used, gives more credibility to the operation.
Obviously, HR has the most important role in orchestrating these interviews, but it is not the only one. Who should evaluate, in principle? For the HR Director of Manpower, "a priori, the responsibility falls to the direct superior because they are the one who defined the initial objectives, knows the person perfectly… but other people can be involved. At our company, for example, nothing prevents the HR department from attending meetings, but it's not mandatory."
For his part, Amine Jamai, who notably worked in an Anglo-Saxon multinational as HR Director, adheres to the principle of collegiality. In other words, using what is called forced ranking. He explains that this Anglo-Saxon method, dating from the 1980s, is a cross-functional performance evaluation method that considers the individual objectives of the employee as well as their contribution to achieving the company's overall objectives. It is a "collegial" evaluation system that allows each member of an evaluation committee to judge all the company's employees, without limiting themselves to those in their own department. An employee is evaluated according to their overall skills and ranked against colleagues whose positions have the same weight in the company. The evaluation is forced because, out of 100 employees, there will be a number 1 and a number 100.
According to Mr. Jamai, the principle is to force managers to make serious choices about employee performance in order to: increase team spirit within a company; those who contribute to the success of the entire company are better rated than those who only contribute to the success of their department; to oblige evaluating managers to integrate opinions external to their department, allowing for greater overall coherence and reducing "silo" effects; to reward performance based on rational elements, understood by all; and finally, to strengthen the nature of the allocation decision, which is made by the evaluation committee and no longer by a department, a person…
This creates a solidarity of decision, whether in favor or against an employee. An employee praised by the committee appears on the radar of all departments as a potential employee to recruit, and de facto creates a "high-potential" or "star system," itself attractive for the employer brand on the market.
Naturally, this method is not the only one; others exist, such as 360 degrees and assessment centers. The essential thing for the company is to apply the one best suited to its activity and environment.
Never make promises you can't keep
In summary, evaluation is therefore a project to prepare for in the long term. Therefore, it is essential to have a well-structured HR department and a clear organization. How can you evaluate if you don't have a skills framework, job descriptions, or a remuneration strategy? Aziz Taib also insists on the importance of these elements.
As the evaluation period approaches, some companies inform their staff a fortnight in advance so that everyone can prepare their arguments. Some insist that the interview should take place outside the institutional setting (the boss's office). The goal is to de-dramatize it and make it a beneficial moment of exchange. Some managers even advocate organizing the session, at a certain hierarchical level, in a restaurant, over a meal. The exchanges will be more relaxed, but we must not forget that it is above all a matter of reviewing work, objectives, performance, and the resources to be implemented to make progress… Seriousness, in short.
For Mr. Jamai, "the essential thing is to establish clear rules; there must be neither settling of scores nor complacency." Clearly, these recommendations are very important. "Sometimes, evaluators tend to spare their employees or simply don't have the strength to tell them the truth to their face," comments Mr. Sefrioui. Overall, objectivity must prevail, even if it is sometimes difficult for an evaluator to have all their remarks accepted. Hence the interest of forced ranking.
In any case, in the event of disagreements, "the employee and the evaluator always have the possibility of informing the hierarchical superior (n+2) to agree, after consultation, on a final position," indicates Mr. Taib, who points out that the results are taken into consideration for annual bonuses and salary increases, without this being systematic. This is how Amine Jamai insists on the fact that "you should never make a promise you can't keep."
In short, it is useful to reward high performers. But the most important thing for the company is to project itself into the future. In other words, adapt its human resources to the evolution of the company and its environment through training, internal mobility, and coaching. In other words, it is necessary to help the less successful employees get into the company's rhythm by supporting them according to the identified difficulties. Difficulties, it should be emphasized, which may stem from the management style. If exchanges are not restrictive, the manager could also realize that they have attitudes to change or initiatives to take to lead their employee(s) forward. It is still necessary that they understand the stakes and are able to conduct the interview well. In this regard, our specialists insist on the need to train evaluators. Certainly, a manager knows their employees, but is not always able to cope with these often formal moments where a career can be at stake.
Brahim Habriche.
Lavieeco.com
Published December 14, 2011.
Posted online January 4, 2012.
For many companies, the annual "big talk" is approaching. This face-to-face meeting is never a mere formality. It often determines the credibility of the employee, but also of the manager, the level of salary increase, and even the future of employees. In this area, it is a less widespread practice, mainly implemented by subsidiaries of multinationals and a few large national private groups, entities with a well-structured human resources management system. Everywhere, the objectives assigned to this tool are practically the same: to compare achievements to objectives, to reward, to define a progress plan for the employee, including through training, etc.
However, the approach can vary from one company to another. Therefore, La Vie éco brought together HR directors and consultants to reflect on the best ways to design an effective evaluation system.
In most companies, the performance evaluation interview is a one-off action that usually takes place before the end of the year. However, some managers, like Aicha Beymik, HR Director of Manpower Morocco, refuse to limit themselves to this formal moment. In her opinion, "evaluation must be periodic. With the current times, how can you have visibility over a year, or sometimes even over three or six months? I think these moments should be frequent to allow for course correction in case of setbacks." Abdelillah Sefrioui, an HR consultant, agrees, emphasizing that "the frequency depends on the company and its environment, and that there can be ongoing evaluations without formalization."
For his part, Amine Jamai, consultant and CEO of Valoris Conseil, also raises the question of the usefulness of a performance evaluation interview. "Obviously, it's to avoid repeating the failures of the previous year, but also to see the future better. Unfortunately, I have rarely seen courageous evaluations that provide good feedback to the person being evaluated. It's either complacency or a settling of scores." Indeed, as Mr. Jamai suggests, the performance evaluation interview is a management tool designed not only to assess the professional and behavioral performance of an employee, but also to define ways to improve their contribution to the company's performance. It is not a rigid rating system. It is not a simple informal meeting during which the employee passively endures the hierarchical impulses of their superior. The evaluation is based on an exchange. On the one hand, the evaluator aims, in particular, to take stock of skills mapping, improve interpersonal relationships, assess promotion possibilities, and clarify individual objectives, in relation to those of the company. On the other hand, the interview allows the employee to gather information on the quality of their performance, clarify the definition of their mission(s), discuss their career plan, and their compensation…
The ideal is to give 70% of the speaking time to the employee because it's about the evaluator "listening," says Ms. Beymik. Abdelillah Sefrioui adds that "these annual moments are also important because we don't only focus on the evaluator-employee relationship, but also on the problems affecting the company in general."
Any appreciation system requires prerequisites
In any case, it is a process integrated into human resources development. The participants agree that the usefulness of evaluation is undeniable if it is well prepared and correctly conducted. This is why such a project is doomed to failure if it does not obtain the buy-in of the entire company, they warn. "It is useful to explain it, define the criteria that best suit the company's context, and train both evaluators and those being evaluated," advises Aziz Taib, HR Director of Stroc Industries. He adds that "there must be a company culture that allows the interview to be generalized but, above all, well understood by all those concerned." For example, some groups circulate performance appraisal interview guides at all levels. These documents emphasize objectives, the rating system, the main points to discuss, and the different stages of the process.
On the other hand, Aziz Taib suggests going further by involving certain people in setting up the system best suited to the company. "Involving some people in proposing or integrating key skills into the evaluation makes it more acceptable to employees," he says. For example, having the agreement of employee representatives, or the union, on the method used, gives more credibility to the operation.
Obviously, HR has the most important role in orchestrating these interviews, but it is not the only one. Who should evaluate, in principle? For the HR Director of Manpower, "a priori, the responsibility falls to the direct superior because they are the one who defined the initial objectives, knows the person perfectly… but other people can be involved. At our company, for example, nothing prevents the HR department from attending meetings, but it's not mandatory."
For his part, Amine Jamai, who notably worked in an Anglo-Saxon multinational as HR Director, adheres to the principle of collegiality. In other words, using what is called forced ranking. He explains that this Anglo-Saxon method, dating from the 1980s, is a cross-functional performance evaluation method that considers the individual objectives of the employee as well as their contribution to achieving the company's overall objectives. It is a "collegial" evaluation system that allows each member of an evaluation committee to judge all the company's employees, without limiting themselves to those in their own department. An employee is evaluated according to their overall skills and ranked against colleagues whose positions have the same weight in the company. The evaluation is forced because, out of 100 employees, there will be a number 1 and a number 100.
According to Mr. Jamai, the principle is to force managers to make serious choices about employee performance in order to: increase team spirit within a company; those who contribute to the success of the entire company are better rated than those who only contribute to the success of their department; to oblige evaluating managers to integrate opinions external to their department, allowing for greater overall coherence and reducing "silo" effects; to reward performance based on rational elements, understood by all; and finally, to strengthen the nature of the allocation decision, which is made by the evaluation committee and no longer by a department, a person…
This creates a solidarity of decision, whether in favor or against an employee. An employee praised by the committee appears on the radar of all departments as a potential employee to recruit, and de facto creates a "high-potential" or "star system," itself attractive for the employer brand on the market.
Naturally, this method is not the only one; others exist, such as 360 degrees and assessment centers. The essential thing for the company is to apply the one best suited to its activity and environment.
Never make promises you can't keep
In summary, evaluation is therefore a project to prepare for in the long term. Therefore, it is essential to have a well-structured HR department and a clear organization. How can you evaluate if you don't have a skills framework, job descriptions, or a remuneration strategy? Aziz Taib also insists on the importance of these elements.
As the evaluation period approaches, some companies inform their staff a fortnight in advance so that everyone can prepare their arguments. Some insist that the interview should take place outside the institutional setting (the boss's office). The goal is to de-dramatize it and make it a beneficial moment of exchange. Some managers even advocate organizing the session, at a certain hierarchical level, in a restaurant, over a meal. The exchanges will be more relaxed, but we must not forget that it is above all a matter of reviewing work, objectives, performance, and the resources to be implemented to make progress… Seriousness, in short.
For Mr. Jamai, "the essential thing is to establish clear rules; there must be neither settling of scores nor complacency." Clearly, these recommendations are very important. "Sometimes, evaluators tend to spare their employees or simply don't have the strength to tell them the truth to their face," comments Mr. Sefrioui. Overall, objectivity must prevail, even if it is sometimes difficult for an evaluator to have all their remarks accepted. Hence the interest of forced ranking.
In any case, in the event of disagreements, "the employee and the evaluator always have the possibility of informing the hierarchical superior (n+2) to agree, after consultation, on a final position," indicates Mr. Taib, who points out that the results are taken into consideration for annual bonuses and salary increases, without this being systematic. This is how Amine Jamai insists on the fact that "you should never make a promise you can't keep."
In short, it is useful to reward high performers. But the most important thing for the company is to project itself into the future. In other words, adapt its human resources to the evolution of the company and its environment through training, internal mobility, and coaching. In other words, it is necessary to help the less successful employees get into the company's rhythm by supporting them according to the identified difficulties. Difficulties, it should be emphasized, which may stem from the management style. If exchanges are not restrictive, the manager could also realize that they have attitudes to change or initiatives to take to lead their employee(s) forward. It is still necessary that they understand the stakes and are able to conduct the interview well. In this regard, our specialists insist on the need to train evaluators. Certainly, a manager knows their employees, but is not always able to cope with these often formal moments where a career can be at stake.
Brahim Habriche.
Lavieeco.com
Published December 14, 2011.
Posted online January 4, 2012.
