{"id":512,"date":"2010-02-01T15:26:18","date_gmt":"2010-02-01T14:26:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.feedingedge.co.uk\/blog\/?p=512"},"modified":"2010-02-01T15:26:18","modified_gmt":"2010-02-01T14:26:18","slug":"performance-bell-curves-dont-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.feedingedge.co.uk\/blog\/2010\/02\/01\/performance-bell-curves-dont-work\/","title":{"rendered":"Performance bell curves don’t work!"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Tweet<\/a><\/div>\n

Towards the end of each year and start of the next many people in “serious businesses'” seem to have to suffer the torture that is the annual performance review. Not having to deal with this ridiculous set of processes this year has not kept me away from it. I still see the unfortunate side effects that the various systems used have on people, their morale and their sense of belonging to an organization.
\nWhat tends to happen in most large companies is that they have decided that everyone should be measured against some set of targets. (That sort of makes sense). They then decide that clearly some people will be better at things that others. (Another correct assumption). They then decide that a bell curve should be applied to the performance of people. i.e. lots in the middle of the road and some great people at one end and no so great at the other. (This also makes some sense).
\nThen the logic goes out of the window in favour of process.
\nThe bell curve is not applies across the entire population at once. Instead it is broken up into bell curve copies with equal weighting and applied to nominal collections of individuals, such as a department. As each department and individuals actual objectives are probably different the relative performance and the bell curve are in effect blown to pieces, like for like is not easily applied.
\nVarious groups of individuals may have champions in the political systems who fight for a greater share of the bell curve, but many will instead try and fit the bell curve onto their people then attempt to justify their decisions.
\n<\/param><\/param><\/param><\/embed><\/object>
\nA whole heap of time and money is wasted in many large corporations in order to ensure that the status quo is maintained.
\nI have experience all ends of the spectrum in these evaluations. If you get an outstanding result you feel great, but also slightly guilty. Very few people will take people to the pub to celebrate their “outstanding” performance rating.
\nThose that get the next level down (typically there are only 4 or 5 ratings) feel sort of happy, but annoyed at being so close yet so far form being told they are great.
\nThe next rating is really “yep you are just about doing you job” thanks very much for that!
\nThe other ratings are typically supposed to be a wake up call of some sort, or a threat, or “well its just your turn”. The slightest reason can be used to reduce someone to a low performer. I have heard and experienced enough aberrations in the process such as the particular dichotomy of receiving some of these ratings dressed up as business but knowing they were personal and possibly bullying, to know that the systems used are damaging in so many ways.
\nSo what does a company achieve by attempting to centralise and control the distribution of performance?
\nWell they force most people to be mediocre, and hence the company to be mediocre.
\nOnce thing social media has taught us is that even the most mediocre employee in a company can have a huge impact on the direction of the business. So surely it is time for the HR departments to find some innovation somewhere?
\nThis is not to hide from competition and merit, but to actually put that back onto a footing where it means something.
\nI have to consider these things even more deeply in how the companies I am helping create, that I work with and possibly for deal with people. <\/p>\n