First, the balance between the assessment target value and the scoring standard
1) Balance between company target value and department target value
When setting the target value of departmental assessment indicators, the first thing to consider is how to achieve the company's target value, how to undertake the company's target value, let the department's target value serve the company's target value, and let all departments work together for the company's performance target value, so that the department's target value can be better realized. In addition, when setting the department target value, we should refer to the completion of the indicators.
2) Balance of grading standards between departments and positions of departments.
The assessment indicators undertaken by functional departments are generally composed of company strategic decomposition indicators, departmental responsibility indicators and annual key work of departments.
According to the difficulty of completing the indicators, the indicators are divided into three categories: challenging indicators, ideal indicators and threshold indicators. Among them, challenging indicators refer to indicators that are still difficult to complete under the condition of sufficient resources, mainly for indicators that have not been successfully recorded in the past three years; Ideal index: the level that can be achieved through hard work under good conditions; Threshold indicators: indicators that all departments must meet. The departmental responsibility indicators are mostly threshold indicators, and the annual key work indicators and strategic decomposition indicators are mostly ideal indicators and challenge indicators.
We can ensure the balance of assessment by setting the difficulty coefficient for the above three types of indicators, fixing the proportion of different indicators or setting extra points. Taking the difficulty coefficient as an example, the difficulty coefficients of the challenging index, the ideality index and the threshold index are 1.2, 1.0 and 0.8 respectively, and the weight of a certain threshold index is 10 (that is, the full score of this index is 65438+), which can ensure the balance of assessment indicators of different functional departments. In the same way, the above requirements should be met when designing functional post indicators, so as to avoid the situation that the key performance post assessment of the department is low and the daily staff assessment of the department is high.
Second, the balance of assessment indicators.
1) Balance between company-level decomposition indicators and departmental responsibilities derived indicators
The main purpose of designing indicators is to achieve the company's strategic goals. Therefore, when designing the evaluation indicators of functional departments, we should first decompose the indicators from the company level to the departments to form key performance indicators (KPI indicators), and then design general performance indicators (CPI indicators) from the responsibilities of the departments, with the company's strategic decomposition indicators as the main factor and the departmental responsibility indicators as the supplement. Ensure that functional departments can proceed from the interests of the company and avoid the phenomenon of departmental fragmentation. In the functional post indicators, the above requirements should also be met.
2) Balance between qualitative and quantitative indicators
Qualitative index refers to the index that can not directly analyze the evaluation content through data calculation, but needs to objectively describe and analyze the evaluation object to reflect the evaluation result; Quantitative indicators are assessment indicators that can accurately define, measure and set performance targets quantitatively.
For the quantitative index design of functional departments, we can use Griporter's quartering tool to determine the name of the index from four aspects: time dimension, cost dimension, quality dimension and quantity dimension. Because the performance of the assessed reflected by qualitative indicators is often general and covers many aspects, Gribert's four-point method can also be used in indicator design to minimize this generality and ambiguity. However, the assessment of functional departments should be based on quantitative indicators, supplemented by qualitative indicators.
In view of the fact that functional departments completely adopt quantitative indicators for assessment, it will bring a lot of workload to the collection of assessment data, which will lead to time-consuming and laborious assessment and extremely high cost. It will also lead to the main performance indicators being abandoned because they cannot be quantified, and the secondary performance being selected because they can be quantified.
3) Balance between outcome indicators and process indicators
A lot of work in functional departments and positions is streamlined, and there is no clear work output. In particular, the work motivation of employees in functional departments is very strong, which is difficult to be reflected in long-term business results. When designing indicators, process-based work plan indicators account for a large proportion in a short assessment cycle, and result-based key performance assessment indicators should be set in a longer assessment cycle as much as possible. Among the employee appraisal indicators, process-based work plan indicators account for a larger proportion. The higher the management level, the smaller the weight of the work plan in the assessment indicators, and the greater the weight of the key performance indicators. For example, the receptionist of the company has a front desk hygiene in the assessment and has no obvious output results. What kind of hygiene is up to standard, there is no clear standard. Only process indicators can be assessed, and the assessment is set to clean the front desk twice a day, requiring no scraps of paper and other sundries.
Third, the balance of assessment scores.
1) Balance between functional departments
Qualitative indicators occupy a certain proportion in the assessment indicators of functional departments, and different departments have different raters, which will inevitably lead to the phenomenon of strong subjectivity and different scoring scales. Therefore, after the assessment, the assessment results need to be balanced before they can be used. After the grading, the performance team will discuss the results first, and the assessment and grading results will be used after secondary processing. The second is to set a certain difficulty coefficient for different functional departments. For example, if a department scores 80 points and its index difficulty coefficient is 1.2, the final score is 80* 1.2=96 points. You can also consider setting a "difficulty coefficient" for each indicator, and get the final score of the department through final accumulation.
2) Balance among employees in functional departments
Because most of the indicators of departmental employees are set by the direct superiors (department heads), considering that the heads of various departments have different degrees of tightness in setting target values and assessment standards for employees, the performance comparability among employees in various departments is weak. When the assessment scores of employees in different departments are unified, the original scores of employees cannot be directly used, and the following methods can be used for balance adjustment:
A) Firstly, the department difficulty coefficient is set according to the different nature of work of each functional department, and then the original scores of employees of each functional department are converted according to the formula before use. For example, if the employee score is 80 and the department difficulty coefficient is 1.2, the employee's final score is 80* 1.2=96.
B) Use the "average processing" assessment score to link the assessment results of departments with those of employees, and then process the results. For example, the score of employees is 80, the average score of department employees is 85, and the average score of company employees is 75, so the final score of employees is =80*75/85=70.59.
Using the above methods can ensure that employees in the department still maintain the original performance structure differences, avoid the risk of too wide or too strict indicators of employees or departments to a certain extent, prevent the phenomenon of deliberately reducing the difficulty of assessment indicators in order to improve performance, help employees continuously improve their work and challenge difficult goals.
Fourth, balance the use of assessment results.
1) Performance bonus balance
The level of employee's performance bonus is based on the company's benefit and the department's performance, so in the application of assessment results, the employee's performance bonus distribution and salary adjustment should be combined with the company's benefit and the department's performance. If the company benefits well, employees will also benefit. Employees with excellent assessment results should also get more performance bonuses and salary promotion opportunities. For example, when the assessment results are forcibly distributed, the assessment grade is excellent, and the proportion of employees in departments with excellent assessment grade is higher than that in departments with good assessment grade.
2) Balance the application of performance results in different stages.
According to the actual situation of the enterprise, the employee assessment of functional departments and positions is generally divided into monthly, quarterly, semi-annual and annual. Monthly and quarterly assessments focus on some basic work and process work, while semi-annual and annual assessments focus on some results and performance indicators. Therefore, the balance of long-term, medium-term and short-term assessment results should be considered in the application of performance bonus, salary adjustment, promotion, praise and training.
The balance method of performance appraisal of the above-mentioned functional departments and functional posts is to avoid some problems brought by performance management from the aspects of performance management scheme and index design, and to some extent, solve all kinds of unfair phenomena in the performance appraisal process. However, in the actual performance management, it is necessary to continuously train the personnel in charge of assessment to improve their performance management and control ability, so that they can effectively implement the performance management plan, and the performance management system can more effectively serve the realization of enterprise strategic objectives.