Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Partners
Loyality is Killed for a Second Time, as You Just Can't be Too Careful...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="upscorpis" data-source="post: 1080040" data-attributes="member: 2017"><p>I saw the initial deployment of the curve as a tool to allow different management teams a chance to really ask hard questions about their ratings vs. expectations. It forced a reexamination against the expected result. Initially, I believe this was a healthy exercise as different management teams naturally rate harder/easier than each other. The curve was a way to bring these inconsistent rating standards closer together. That's not to say everyone implemented it correctly but that's not the fault of the tool. My observation is this forced many IS managers that were not good at handling poor performers to deal with those situations instead of handing out average or just under average ratings. The take away is the number people actually performing at the low end of the curve diminished during the initial implementation.</p><p></p><p>Now we're three years into it and the expected distribution of the curve is still the same. This makes no sense as the population being measured is no longer normal due to the impact of the first three years. I keep hearing that we have to "raise the bar" in order to keep the results aligned to the curve. If that is the expectation, then HR should come out and present that expectation overtly and explain exactly how it should be implemented, especially in light of the new job models. If the bar is not to be raised, then someone that knows something about statistics needs to counsel our HR partners about why the curve cannot remain that same if the population is not random due to actions already taken. In either case, lack of clear direction leaves this in the hands of local management teams which is a recipe foe a big mess to ensue (with emphasis on the "sue").</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="upscorpis, post: 1080040, member: 2017"] I saw the initial deployment of the curve as a tool to allow different management teams a chance to really ask hard questions about their ratings vs. expectations. It forced a reexamination against the expected result. Initially, I believe this was a healthy exercise as different management teams naturally rate harder/easier than each other. The curve was a way to bring these inconsistent rating standards closer together. That's not to say everyone implemented it correctly but that's not the fault of the tool. My observation is this forced many IS managers that were not good at handling poor performers to deal with those situations instead of handing out average or just under average ratings. The take away is the number people actually performing at the low end of the curve diminished during the initial implementation. Now we're three years into it and the expected distribution of the curve is still the same. This makes no sense as the population being measured is no longer normal due to the impact of the first three years. I keep hearing that we have to "raise the bar" in order to keep the results aligned to the curve. If that is the expectation, then HR should come out and present that expectation overtly and explain exactly how it should be implemented, especially in light of the new job models. If the bar is not to be raised, then someone that knows something about statistics needs to counsel our HR partners about why the curve cannot remain that same if the population is not random due to actions already taken. In either case, lack of clear direction leaves this in the hands of local management teams which is a recipe foe a big mess to ensue (with emphasis on the "sue"). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Partners
Loyality is Killed for a Second Time, as You Just Can't be Too Careful...
Top