The glories of Performance Management

So we have this peer review system at work that affects, among other things, our salary increase and our bonus percentage. Basically, in the overall review process, a certain weight is given to the subjective appraisal of your performance by the people with whom you work most intimately. Their reviews, combined with your achievement (or lackthereof) of certain personal "goals," and the final tweaking of your score by your boss, leave you with an integer ranking from 1-5. One is the best.

All nice and tidy up to this point until you realize that the company has decided in recent years to normalize their distribution curve. In other words, only 5% of any job type (tech, in my case) can be a one, 15% can be a two, 60% are threes, etc. Matters are further complicated by the fact that a three gets 100% of his target bonus and salary increase, but a one gets something like 105%, and a five gets nothing. Zilch. Still with me? As you can see, the stakes are high, to say the least.

Now, being the whiz kid that I am, I'm not worried at all that I'll be a one and banking it. I'm the shit. Still, I have to wonder about the justice of the system as a whole. I understand that in theory it should motivate people to perform to the best of their ability, and push themselves to the limit of performance. In theory. But still, even in that completely idealistic scenario, someone always ends up a five. At some point, reality sets in, and you must admit that not everyone subsists on the same overall talent and performance level. Even then - is that reason enough to, in effect, punish the man who just flat out doesn't have enough to offer?

A five is punishment, by the way. Receiving no bonus and no salary increase, when you factor in the inflationary cost of living, is tantamount to a salary decrease. You really gotta feel for the poor sap who's honestly put in his best effort and is rewarded with a big fat "try harder." Contrasted with the old system in which, theoretically, everyone could be a "one," I'm fairly certain that the percentile approach is bad for everyone. The one - if he has the slightest shred of conscious - ends up feeling somewhat guilty for the lack of graciousness the company feels toward his colleague's efforts. The five? Well, he just feels like shit no matter what. I think the overall depression in morale alone should convince the HR gurus that the system's a bust.

I say if you're gonna rate, screw the percentiles. Screw normalization. Let the boss rate as he will. Hell, that's part of his job anyway - to know the ability level of his employees and monitor their performance. As long as he's got some sort of documentation to justify his ranking in a disputable case, let him hack away.

No one asked me though.

Oh well. I should probably get back to being a one.