If the performance appraisal loses fairness, it will dampen the enthusiasm of employees and is not conducive to encouraging employees to finish their work creatively and with high quality. When it is serious, it will mislead the employment decision of enterprises and produce reverse distribution. In contrast, ensuring the fairness of performance appraisal can motivate employees, eliminate resistance, improve the level of teamwork, help enterprises make correct human resources decisions, reduce labor costs and improve productivity. However, the operation of performance appraisal is often goal-oriented. When applied to individuals, the differences of objective conditions such as regions will have a great impact on their performance appraisal results, leading to unfair performance appraisal.
As a management system, performance management includes not only performance appraisal, but also performance planning, performance communication, performance feedback and performance supervision. To make performance appraisal effective depends on the good operation of the whole performance management system. In this management system, the core is performance appraisal, that is, how to obtain the appraisal results of employees accurately and effectively. The key is to solve the unfair problem of performance appraisal, which is simple to say but difficult to do.
Enterprises should be aware that the design of performance appraisal indicators is a process of gradual improvement. The quantification of indicators should also be gradually strengthened with the improvement of internal management of enterprises. Especially for small and medium-sized enterprises or start-up enterprises, because the enterprise mainly focuses on sales at this stage, the objective internal management ability is not enough to support the acquisition of too many quantitative indicators, so it is not an immediate thing to achieve more quantitative indicators. From the point of view of quantification of assessment indicators, assessment indicators should be designed in stages according to the actual situation of enterprises, especially considering the cost of data acquisition, and gradually improve with the improvement of internal management capabilities, so as not to be overly demanding. And no matter what stage the enterprise is in, it may involve the quantification of qualitative indicators. There are direct and indirect solutions to this problem, which can be combined in the actual operation of enterprises.
The direct solution is that qualitative indicators can be described by standard method, that is, the scoring standards of qualitative indicators can be described according to four grades: excellent, good, medium and poor, and the scoring basis of each grade can be clarified. There should not be too many grades, generally four, otherwise it will increase the difficulty of standard definition, but it should not be too few, otherwise it will not achieve the "quantitative effect". Each grade can correspond to a score segment or a fixed score. When describing the scoring standards, we should be as specific and accurate as possible, and gradually improve these standards with the development of enterprises, so that qualitative indicators can be gradually "quantified".
Indirect solutions are suitable for qualitative indicators that cannot be well "quantified", so the deficiency of quantitative indicators can be alleviated by increasing performance management means. These means mainly include: asking the assessed to give reasons for the scoring results, especially the indicators rated as "excellent", or asking the assessed to communicate with the assessed and fill in the performance communication record form to supervise the fairness of performance appraisal; You can also strengthen the management of performance appraisal complaints, encourage employees to complain and so on. These means can remind examiners to take assessment scores seriously, especially the evaluation of qualitative indicators.
In reality, in order to avoid the phenomenon of "high" or "middle" assessment results, many enterprises adopt various management methods. The more common ones are as follows:
Forced distribution method. There are many methods, including proportional forced distribution, such as normal distribution; Mandatory allocation of quantity, that is, limiting the number of people in each assessment level: or both. ?
The compulsory scoring results widen the gap. That is to say, for the same index or different candidates, it is required that the scoring results must be divided into fixed scores, so as to avoid over-concentration or basically no difference in scores. ?
2. Fixed scoring method. In other words, qualitative indicators are designed in several grades, such as excellent, good, medium and poor. Each grade corresponds to a fixed score, and scores other than the fixed score are not allowed. For example, "excellent" corresponds to 100, and "good" corresponds to 80. Therefore, when scoring, we can only give 100 or 80 points according to the actual situation of the assessed, so that on the one hand, we can avoid too much human interference, on the other hand, we can force the gap between scores. ?
For these management methods, all enterprises have applications, and each method has advantages and disadvantages. However, after in-depth study, the forced distribution method is a relatively good method among many methods for enterprises with a small number of quantitative indicators or low weight of quantitative indicators, but the key is how to "force".
In terms of advantages, compulsory distribution can not only avoid the phenomenon of "getting higher" or "changing" in the assessment, but also control the labor cost of enterprises. It should be noted here that the forced distribution method does not have to be designed in strict accordance with the normal distribution, and enterprises can do it according to their own needs.
Of course, compulsory distribution also has its drawbacks, that is, compulsory distribution of the proportion or number of people with high scores, which is unfair in itself. However, many advantages of compulsory distribution deserve enterprises' attention. In addition to widening the gap in assessment results and effectively controlling labor costs, the key is to guide examiners to take assessment seriously and make it more effective. Due to the requirement of compulsory distribution, how many people should be given high marks and who should be given high marks has become a problem before the examiner. Therefore, this requires the appraiser to treat everyone seriously and give a fair evaluation as much as possible. In this way, after a long period of implementation, the appraisers will form the habit of "strictly treating the appraisal" to a certain extent, and the unfair factors will gradually decrease with the passage of time. At this time, the forced distribution method can be "retired to the second line" and need not be adopted. Therefore, in general, the advantages of compulsory distribution outweigh the disadvantages, and it can be the first choice for enterprises.
? Due to the difficulty of human resource management, the fairness of performance appraisal has been questioned. However, there is no absolute justice in the world, and the limitations of the performance appraisal system itself cannot be completely eliminated. The inherent defects of the performance appraisal system will inevitably affect the objectivity and fairness of the assessment results. Of course, we can't give up the performance appraisal because of choking on food. On the contrary, on the basis of studying the company's current situation, we should explore the assessment system suitable for that time, and constantly improve and perfect it according to the company's development stage and changes of the times, give full play to the positive role of performance appraisal, and try our best to ensure the fairness of performance appraisal, rather than pursuing perfection excessively.