How to discover low performance

Digest opened free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

There is no fun way to shoot. But imagine how worse it should be to obtain the bag as the employer announces that he suffers from poor artists.

For thousands of workers this year, imagination was not needed.

Mark Zuckerberg of Mita told his employees in January that he “decided to raise the tape to the performance management and move to the faster competitors”, a step expected to eliminate about 3,600 jobs.

Soon after, the workers received the Trump administration’s sweeping administration for federal employees ending Notifications say, “Based on your performance. You have not proven that your additional job in the agency will be in the public interest.”

This week in the United Kingdom, the ministers said they were Go To facilitate forcing civilian employees with lack of drafting on the basis that Whitehall is currently not identical.

These moves are not strictly compared. The US Federal Federal shootings have been so much that some departments had temporarily ordered people to repeat the allegations that the rules were ignored.

The UK government plans Performance monitoring Giving senior employees who are considered to be six months old to improve it before facing the chapter. Meta is also likely to be more likely.

However, every case asks a question that remains difficult to answer amazingly: How do you know if someone is definitely low? In other words, how does the company know that it rejects the people you really want to lose?

You might think this will be clear now, taking into account the time used by employers some forms of the performance review system.

As far as dating back to the 1940s, about 60 percent of American companies were using assessments to determine employee performance and payment and by the 1960s, experts say it was approximately 90 percent.

Last year, 49 percent of American workers surveyed by the Workman Software Group said they were reviewed annually or semi -annually, while another 38 percent have more frequent checks.

There is no puzzle about the reason for the prevailing reviews.

Employers want to verify the shape and fitness of their workforce. Employees want a sense of their good consideration and how they can apply.

The problem is that good performance management requires time and attention to managers, but cost -aware companies have become increasingly delicate To them, a process now known as “cancellation”.

This is one of the reasons why carefully designed evaluation systems are struggling to pick up the performance of each worker completely.

This, in turn, helps to clarify the reason for continuing reviews that are not fictional.

Employees believe that they are unfair and unhelpful. Managers find that they are unreliable and high.

Deloitte fixed its assessments after the organization’s discovery was spent Almost 2 million hours A year on the performance management system that results from classification degrees that have been more unveiled for residents than classification.

Even human resources have interest. Only 2 percent of the major human resources employees at Fortune 500 are convinced that their performance management system inspires their employees to improve, Gallup data Show last year.

In general, it is difficult to feel the confidence that every work declares that it will be subject to medium employees will get it properly.

Flasting, it can be easily identified by those who are governed by work alongside them. Their work is bad. They steal ideas. They are absent from the deadlines. They never have errors or learn from them.

Often, these people suffer from either illusions of sufficiency, or what is worse, they are skilled in persuading the indispensable people.

The review is supposed to be treated at an angle of 360 degrees based on unknown reactions from its peers and junior colleagues, not just managers, such problems.

Unfortunately, it can be incomplete. Young fear of fear. Their peers hate dumping on colleagues. The designed systems can be bad Toughe While the background wrestlers deal with bending each other while the rivals of the backbid were. I know that many managers who divide such assessments, who insist on being done well.

Some companies rid the traditional reviews in favor of monitoring and continuous comments. This should be theoretically better than checking the less frequently, but again requires a time that many managers do not lack.

In the end, performance reviews seem to be a continuous work. This is a small comfort for anyone working for the employer who is determined to sweep low artists.

[email protected]