About five years ago they introduced an appraisal marking system which had the following three overall markings:
These proved too few, so ‘Met Plus’ and ‘Met Minus’ were introduced…
Somewhat contradicting the dictionary definition of ‘Met’.
Now, armed with five overall markings, everyone was happy.
You see, alongside this appraisal system, senior managers also introduced a quota system to guide bonus rewarding. The quota system demanded that each marking be given to a percentage of staff in each department.
This included 15% of all staff being marked as ‘under performed’. They were to be placed on a ‘close management’ basis encouraged to move their performance out of the red ‘under performed’ zone and into the black nirvana of Met Minus.
What goes up must come down, of course. As some are ‘promoted’ out of close management, others fall into the trap. The relentless 15% underperformed label ensures that.
A good system?
They would argue so. They’d say it was more a carrot than a stick.
I say it was an orange stick and instead of leading people they were beating them with it.
Are you leading or beating?
A subsequent blog entry will return to the subject of leading people and rewarding them.
Tags: appraisal marking system appraisal system black nirvana black nirvana of met minus bonus bonus rewarding bullshit carrot stick contradicting dictionary definition dictionary definition of met encouragement exceeded five overall markings guide bonus rewarding interesting approach leading people market leading bank met met minus met plus move their performance nirvana orange stick out of the red quota system senior managers staff encouragement three overall markings under performed