Comments on: Performance Reviews Require Calibration http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/ Career Advice for Cubicle Warriors Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:37:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: Scot Herrick http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/comment-page-1/#comment-3951 Scot Herrick Tue, 20 May 2008 17:06:12 +0000 http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/#comment-3951 And that's precisely why I'm so conflicted about calibration. It's a force -- implied or not -- to an average. Good comment. Thanks for taking the time to make it. And that’s precisely why I’m so conflicted about calibration. It’s a force — implied or not — to an average.

Good comment. Thanks for taking the time to make it.

]]> By: Scot Herrick http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/comment-page-1/#comment-6070 Scot Herrick Tue, 20 May 2008 17:06:00 +0000 http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/#comment-6070 And that's precisely why I'm so conflicted about calibration. It's a force -- implied or not -- to an average. Good comment. Thanks for taking the time to make it. And that’s precisely why I’m so conflicted about calibration. It’s a force — implied or not — to an average.

Good comment. Thanks for taking the time to make it.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/comment-page-1/#comment-3945 Anonymous Tue, 20 May 2008 14:45:16 +0000 http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/#comment-3945 Calibration is pretty much a disaster. In Senge's terms, it's an implicit goal limiting growth. As an organization, you want to inspire managers to develop and hire the best team they possibly can. But calibration creates a powerful incentive to have a team that matches that bell curve. The fascinating part to me is that a lot of organizations don't even have to enforce the bell curve, at any level. The existing forces all act in perfect concert so people create it on their own. Now you have even managers of small groups trying to match the curve. Which means as a manager, life is <b>easier</b> for you if you have a few low performers in your group. If you have all high performers, you will have to fight and justify like hell to get them all above average ratings; it may even be an impossible fight to win depending on your clout with a couple of management levels above you. The path of least resistance is to have a low performer or two; a couple of people you can give low ratings too and easily justify to yourself and them. Not that I think people do this consciously, but this type of implicit goal can become very powerful and many will never realize it. A really great manager can keep things balanced even in the face of calibration, but average ones can not properly reward the right people consistently. I'd also have my really great managers focusing on other things, rather than learning how to game the system just so they can reward the right people. Calibration definitely solves a problem, but the cure is worse than the disease. Calibration is pretty much a disaster. In Senge’s terms, it’s an implicit goal limiting growth. As an organization, you want to inspire managers to develop and hire the best team they possibly can. But calibration creates a powerful incentive to have a team that matches that bell curve.

The fascinating part to me is that a lot of organizations don’t even have to enforce the bell curve, at any level. The existing forces all act in perfect concert so people create it on their own. Now you have even managers of small groups trying to match the curve. Which means as a manager, life is easier for you if you have a few low performers in your group. If you have all high performers, you will have to fight and justify like hell to get them all above average ratings; it may even be an impossible fight to win depending on your clout with a couple of management levels above you.

The path of least resistance is to have a low performer or two; a couple of people you can give low ratings too and easily justify to yourself and them. Not that I think people do this consciously, but this type of implicit goal can become very powerful and many will never realize it.

A really great manager can keep things balanced even in the face of calibration, but average ones can not properly reward the right people consistently. I’d also have my really great managers focusing on other things, rather than learning how to game the system just so they can reward the right people. Calibration definitely solves a problem, but the cure is worse than the disease.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/comment-page-1/#comment-6069 Anonymous Tue, 20 May 2008 14:45:00 +0000 http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/#comment-6069 Calibration is pretty much a disaster. In Senge's terms, it's an implicit goal limiting growth. As an organization, you want to inspire managers to develop and hire the best team they possibly can. But calibration creates a powerful incentive to have a team that matches that bell curve. The fascinating part to me is that a lot of organizations don't even have to enforce the bell curve, at any level. The existing forces all act in perfect concert so people create it on their own. Now you have even managers of small groups trying to match the curve. Which means as a manager, life is <b>easier</b> for you if you have a few low performers in your group. If you have all high performers, you will have to fight and justify like hell to get them all above average ratings; it may even be an impossible fight to win depending on your clout with a couple of management levels above you. The path of least resistance is to have a low performer or two; a couple of people you can give low ratings too and easily justify to yourself and them. Not that I think people do this consciously, but this type of implicit goal can become very powerful and many will never realize it. A really great manager can keep things balanced even in the face of calibration, but average ones can not properly reward the right people consistently. I'd also have my really great managers focusing on other things, rather than learning how to game the system just so they can reward the right people. Calibration definitely solves a problem, but the cure is worse than the disease. Calibration is pretty much a disaster. In Senge’s terms, it’s an implicit goal limiting growth. As an organization, you want to inspire managers to develop and hire the best team they possibly can. But calibration creates a powerful incentive to have a team that matches that bell curve.

The fascinating part to me is that a lot of organizations don’t even have to enforce the bell curve, at any level. The existing forces all act in perfect concert so people create it on their own. Now you have even managers of small groups trying to match the curve. Which means as a manager, life is easier for you if you have a few low performers in your group. If you have all high performers, you will have to fight and justify like hell to get them all above average ratings; it may even be an impossible fight to win depending on your clout with a couple of management levels above you.

The path of least resistance is to have a low performer or two; a couple of people you can give low ratings too and easily justify to yourself and them. Not that I think people do this consciously, but this type of implicit goal can become very powerful and many will never realize it.

A really great manager can keep things balanced even in the face of calibration, but average ones can not properly reward the right people consistently. I’d also have my really great managers focusing on other things, rather than learning how to game the system just so they can reward the right people. Calibration definitely solves a problem, but the cure is worse than the disease.

]]> By: Performance Reviews — Appeals and Reality | Cube Rules http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/comment-page-1/#comment-3903 Performance Reviews — Appeals and Reality | Cube Rules Fri, 16 May 2008 11:06:10 +0000 http://cuberules.com/2008/05/15/performance-reviews-require-calibration/#comment-3903 [...] as an aside, is one of the downsides of calibration. Moving a person from “meets objectives” to “needs improvement” – and taking their raise [...] [...] as an aside, is one of the downsides of calibration. Moving a person from “meets objectives” to “needs improvement” – and taking their raise [...]

]]>