Having participated on both sides of receiving and providing evaluations, I was of the belief that HR had devised a confrontation avoidance system. Of course, not having a PhD in HR Management or HR psychology, my hypothesis contained a personally warped engineering logic and the singular perspective of a young engineer.
First and foremost, let me start by saying that I was fortunate in my early career to have some great and knowledgeable supervisors; they operated within the management system provided.
First, the employee rating system was tied to both titles and pay raises. In my opinion, it was a system of progress based on statistics, so I understand the usage of the bell curve. The titles had pay ranges and depending on where you started within that pay range (under the assumption of average performance) your performance evaluations were directly proportionate to the percentage of pay raise. The new salary could result in a title change or a new title typically resulted in a change in salary; aka the chicken or the egg. There may a typical or set number of years associated with that title and the pay range. One could develop an equation based on the curve. One could argue that the system was designed for personnel beyond reproach and company-wide equity (or was it, see discussions on PIPs).
As a young engineer, I was troubled one moment during one time of the year, performance evaluation day. As much as I loved the technical side of work, this day forced me to address something that I grew to believe was of little consequence. How does a young engineer respond to a performance rating of 3 out of 5 or 5 out of 10 at the end of the year while receiving the feedback "Great job" on a regular basis. As a recent Magna Cum Laude graduate, I was use to grades above 90%. To me, I could not separate my college evaluations from my professional evaluations. These were like failing grades. For one moment out of one day, I had a challenge of dealing with the contradiction.
There was also the link between performance evaluations and promotions. A higher than average performance evaluation could trigger an earlier than normal promotion. Back to the bell curve, progressing in pay too fast would mean promoting ahead of the normal. Perhaps, relative to some of the other projects within the group, 5 out of 10 or 3 out of 5 may be the correct evaluation based on level of relative complexity and time spent completing assignments. While I am sure I would have asked follow-up questions, I know there would be at least one engineer spending a month developing a thesis contradicting the evaluation. However, assignment complexity would have made more sense as a basis than progressing too fast..
As a part of management, I argued during those training sessions for performance evaluation & raises that
a system that rewarded EVERYONE for doing their job well on a daily basis was a disservice for those performing above and beyond their regular duties. One could receive the highest performance evaluation but pay raises were limited to a given percentage for the year. Right or wrong, I stated that
people are hired to perform their job well. No one hires someone to perform poorly. The reward for doing a good job on a regular basis is a regular paycheck. Performance increases should be reserved for exceptional or outstanding performance. Everyone should not receive a raise every year, unless tied to "cost of living". In the end, you do the best to reward those outstanding individuals that you represent.
As one's perspective grows within a company, one may begin to see the differing levels of complexity from group-to-group and department-to-department. Multiple engineers from different groups/departments may share length of service & titles (i.e., Engineer 12 or Super Project Engineer Extraordinaire) but the level of complexity of their assignments may differ exponentially. I would love to see the algorithm that can provide a system of equity in performance evaluation, salary and pay raises that takes into account job complexity, job performance as well as the other intangibles; especially that "works well with others". Yes, that individual that has the most complex task may not always work well with others. LOL! You throw that assignment through the crack in their door, run and listen for the foul language as they comment on how ridiculous the concept is.
You may be surprised to know that I started this against the bell-curve. In contemplating the complexity of it all, my guess is that they eventually get it right. The salary pay raises and appreciation is eventually commensurate with performance. In my opinion, the challenge is keeping engineers long enough to get to that leveling point. My experiences are "ancient", I wonder if mid-size to large companies are figuring it out.
------------------------------
James Williams P.E., M.ASCE
Principal/Owner
POA&M Structural Engineering, PLC
Yorktown, VA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-07-2022 08:01 PM
From: William McAnally
Subject: Employee Performance Ratings
Has anyone encountered an employee performance rating system in which management requires scores to fit an expected distribution, such as a bell curve?
------------------------------
Bill McAnally
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
------------------------------