Clear Review has joined Advanced - Discover our full suite of powerful and innovative people management solutions

Find out more
Back to blog

Do you need performance ratings to manage reward and talent?

Adobestock 97855478

New guid­ance from Mer­cer says you can man­age pay and bonus­es with­out per­for­mance ratings

The effec­tive­ness of per­for­mance rat­ings has increas­ing­ly been called into ques­tion over the last few years, with many well known organ­i­sa­tions such as Adobe, Motoro­la, Microsoft and Expe­dia hav­ing aban­doned them in favour of a more con­tin­u­ous approach to per­for­mance man­age­ment.

They have done this on the back of research which has shown that per­for­mance rat­ings do not accu­rate­ly reflect employ­ee per­for­mance, and that our (large­ly failed) attempts to make them objec­tive (cal­i­bra­tion meet­ings, forced dis­tri­b­u­tion) are huge­ly time con­sum­ing, cre­ate an admin­is­tra­tive bur­den and lead to sig­nif­i­cant neg­a­tiv­i­ty amongst employ­ees and managers.

But if you take away rat­ings, how do you man­age reward and tal­ent man­age­ment process­es? Mer­cer have attempt­ed to answer this ques­tion in an arti­cle recent­ly pub­lished in World@Work Jour­nal and we’ve sum­marised their advice below.

How to man­age pay increases

Mer­cer’s research across its clients found that per­for­mance rat­ings are rarely one of the largest dri­vers of base pay. Empir­i­cal analy­sis has shown that tenure, expe­ri­ence, edu­ca­tion, num­ber of direct reports and grade are the fac­tors that, in real­i­ty, inform base pay decisions.

The authors there­fore rec­om­mend that instead of using per­for­mance rat­ings as a basis for base pay increas­es, a bet­ter cri­te­ri­on may be an employ­ee’s chang­ing mar­ket val­ue based on fac­tors such as length of ser­vice, spe­cial project expe­ri­ence and exter­nal mar­ket forces.

How to man­age bonuses

Bonus­es (also referred to as short-term incen­tives or STI) are fre­quent­ly linked to per­for­mance rat­ings. Yet, the actu­al com­pa­ny suc­cess that funds these incen­tives is typ­i­cal­ly beyond the indi­vid­u­al’s con­trol, espe­cial­ly below the exec­u­tive level.

So if it is the group rather than the indi­vid­ual that dri­ves organ­i­sa­tion­al suc­cess, the authors sug­gest that organ­i­sa­tions should reduce indi­vid­ual dif­fer­en­ti­a­tion in bonus pay­ments. They rec­om­mend bas­ing bonus­es for the major­i­ty of employ­ees on busi­ness or group suc­cess rather than indi­vid­ual performance.

Doing this removes the admin­is­tra­tive bur­den involved in col­lat­ing and cal­i­brat­ing rat­ings and takes away argu­ments over the sub­jec­tiv­i­ty of rat­ing and bonus decisions.

The time saved from this approach allows organ­i­sa­tions to invest greater effort in deter­min­ing the rewards for those indi­vid­u­als who have sig­nif­i­cant­ly con­tributed to the organ­i­sa­tion’s suc­cess. To do this, the authors rec­om­mend con­sid­er­ing the con­tri­bu­tion that those employ­ees have made towards ini­tia­tives or projects that are crit­i­cal to the organ­i­sa­tion and required excep­tion­al efforts and skills. The eli­gi­bil­i­ty for these rewards would be based on an acknowl­edge­ment by the man­ag­er or exec­u­tive who is respon­si­ble for the com­ple­tion of those crit­i­cal initiatives.

To ensure fair­ness, such an approach would ide­al­ly require a mech­a­nism to be put in place for enabling employ­ees to apply to par­tic­i­pate in these ini­tia­tives. This might involve cre­at­ing a strate­gic project post­ing and selec­tion process.

Impact on Tal­ent / High Poten­tial Initiatives

Some organ­i­sa­tions use per­for­mance rat­ings as a way of deter­min­ing eli­gi­bil­i­ty for fast track / high poten­tial tal­ent man­age­ment pro­grammes. The authors point out that per­for­mance rat­ings are not a nec­es­sary ingre­di­ent for these ini­tia­tives. Instead, organ­i­sa­tions could use a sys­tem where­by employ­ees self-nom­i­nate and go through an assess­ment process to be select­ed for fast-track career advancements.

Alter­na­tives to the Mer­cer approach

Whilst this guid­ance from Mer­cer pro­vides a com­pelling alter­na­tive to per­for­mance rat­ings, this may be a step too far for some organ­i­sa­tions. You there­fore may wish to con­sid­er the approach that organ­i­sa­tions like Deloitte have tak­en which is to replace a sin­gle per­for­mance rat­ing with one or more tar­get­ed ques­tions, the results of which can be used to feed into reward and tal­ent dis­cus­sions and decisions.

We should point out that our Clear Review Per­for­mance Man­age­ment Soft­ware can be con­fig­ured to work with or with­out rat­ings, as well as the Deloitte-style tar­get­ed ques­tions approach. It’s your choice. Whichev­er path you take, Clear Review will always bring you the ben­e­fit of improved employ­ee per­for­mance and engage­ment through reg­u­lar per­for­mance check-ins and fre­quent feed­back.