A Tale of Two Staff Appraisals

It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.

OK, that's as far as I go with this cheap imitation of the Charles Dickens classic. Today, I want to talk about staff appraisals. In particular, the one that I went through in my last job and the one that  I encountered in my current job. They were both memorable because of the stark contrast to each other.

Before I continue, let's just ascertain what a staff appraisal is: a period of time, perhaps thirty minutes to an hour, set aside for an employee (the interviewee) and his immediate superior (the interviewer), to sit down and discuss the employee's performance and conduct over the course of the past year, ways in which he can improve, and so on. After which the interviewer will have a discussion with the CEO regarding possible promotions, pay raises and bonuses.

The Staff Appraisal - previous company (A)

There was no standard form provided. The interviewer used a piece of foolscap, drew lines and scribbled down key indicators such as Attire, Punctuality, Attitude and etc. And ratings from 1 to 5, 1 being the worst and 5 being the best. I got a score of 3 to 4 in all areas. The process was pretty perfunctory.

Most tellingly, I was given a score of 3 in Attendance.

"3?" I remember asking then, in disbelief. "I haven't taken MC since I joined the company more than a year ago. What do I have to earn a 5? Forfeit all my annual leave and stay in the office 24/7?" The interviewer gave me a look of amused tolerance, and I understood then. This was a sham. It was what they call Wayang.

Wayang Kulit

For those not in the know, the term Wayang originated from Wayang Kulit, a form of shadow puppetry originating from Java, Indonesia. In local parlance, it's primarily used as a descriptive term for "smoke and mirrors". And this staff appraisal was a Wayang.

The Staff Appraisal - present company (B)

When I went through this company's staff review, the first thing that struck me was that there was a proper standard form for it, with the company letterhead, official signatures and all the trappings. There was even a questionnaire for the interviewee to fill up. Not just multiple choice questions, but essay questions. They actually expected feedback, and expected some thought to be put into it!

For every staff member being interviewed, the HOD, HR, COO and CEO would sit in and go through each and every question. They would discuss the interviewee's current scope of work, suggestions for improvement, and so on. The entire process took days.

And the difference is...

Aside from the availability of standard documentation and the appearance of objectivity, you mean?

Company A was going through the motions of making it look like the employee's performance over the course of the past year made a difference to whether the employee would receive a significant pay increment, bonus or promotion. In truth, the CEO had already mapped all this out in his mind - which staff members he valued more (and thus would reward more) and which he was willing to risk leaving due to discontent. The actual performance indicators, to put it indelicately, meant jackshit. The interviewer's feedback to the CEO was meant merely to enforce his preconceptions, not challenge them. Because God forbid that the CEO would actually have to pay attention. Thus a middling score for every area. Safe, nondescript and non-threatening.

Just for the record, I am not against this. The position of CEO comes with a great amount of pressure. There is much that hinges upon his decisions. He can play favorites if he wants to. I support the CEO's right to judge you based on how pretty you look in a skirt or how many hours you spend - apparently hard at work - in the office, how close a friend you are to his wife, and so on. If you don't like it, tough titty. Leave!

And let's face it - there's no point in having all that power if you can't let it go to your head every now and then, eh?

I'm also not against it being a Wayang. Appearances have to be kept up, after all. It's only right and proper. Employers need employees to think that management is fair, and that the hard work they put in, the loyalty they demonstrate and the results they produce will eventually pay off. This serves to keep them on their toes and their noses enthusiastically to the grindstone. It's a sound management practice.

Not much of a Matrix

My real point of contention is: What's the point of a Wayang if it's executed in such a sloppy fashion? The performance was a spectacular fail. In this Matrix, everyone but the dullest blockhead is a Morpheus. You score a staggering 1 for Presentation, pal. This smacks of complacency. Do it like you mean it, or don't do it at all.

Compare this to Company B's effort. They actually took the effort to present the staff appraisal like it actually meant something. Like it actually mattered.

Of course, it could all still have been a Wayang. Even if not meant to be a Wayang, personal sentiment could still get in the way and color the end result. These are human beings we're talking about, even if they are professionals. But if this was a Wayang, kudos to the performers, this was one hell of a Wayang! That was a lot of time and effort to spend on an illusion.

Take note, CEO of Company A. This is how you keep up appearances.

May the Farce be with you!
T___T