So here is a common script that I've seen played over and over again.
An organization 'values' a potential hire based on the 'standardised' parameters of (a) number of years of experience (b) current compensation (c) current position (d) existing pay scale in the organization etc. The candidate is made an offer (position and salary) in the 'best interests' of the organization which turns out to 'under-value' the 'potential' of the candidate. The person joins the organization and turns out to be an extra-ordinary performer and adds value to the organization way beyond his brief. When the first performance cycle comes, unfortunately the company is not able to promote him because the minimum period an employee has to spend in the company before a promotion is 12 months. He is rated at the highest performance level and gets the 'best' raise possible in percentage terms. But because he was under-valued at the time of hire, a high percentage raise does not correspond to a high raise in absolute salary and he continues to be under-valued. At the same appraisal cycle, he sees his lesser performing colleagues who had spent more time in the organization getting promoted by virtue of being ahead of him in the 'waiting line' for promotion. Our protagonist feels dejected and de-motivated, but having the DNA of a high performer, he is again motivated by the challenges at work and continues adding value to the organization. The great appraisal fair comes calling again and our under-valued poster boy gets that long awaited promotion with a considerable raise in percentage terms. But, the fact that he was initially under-valued continues to offset the promotion and raise that has been doled out. Interestingly, the organization remains ignorant to the fact that a high performing employee has been under-valued and does nothing to correct this imbalance.
One fine day, revelation finally dawns on our hero that he is grossly under-valued by the organization and decides to quit his current job. When our hero breaks the news, it's received with extreme surprise and disappointment by the organization. Management goes over-board to pacify our protagonist and let him know how much he is valued by the organization. They also ask him what they can do to change his decision and some people even promise that anything can be done to keep him in the company (which will be carefully worded like, 'We can 'work' it out!). After couple of rounds of negotiation, both parties reach an agreement and our hero continues to be with the company. The employee is either promised an astronomical hike, or a long term foreign assignment or a certain role he had his eyes on.
What surprises me most is this reactive response from organizations - they seem to wake up only when they realise that an exceptional employee is resigning! HR and management talks about salary ranges, salary parity within the team, restrictions on promotion etc. to justify their weird decisions during an appraisal cycle, but when crisis hits (like when a high performer resigns) all these 'standards' seem irrelevant and insignificant. If this is not opportunism and hypocrisy, what is?!!
Here are my take-aways from this post:
(a) A high potential employee who is under-valued at the time of hire, will continue to be under-valued in the organization, unless the employee deliberately tries to change this condition.
(b) Standards defined for employee appraisals including salary ranges, parity within team etc. are not golden standards and can be altered as and when required by the management.
(c) There is no mechanism or process to measure the value of an employee, other than archaic employee appraisal mechanism that rates an employee based on colours, numbers or alphabets!
(d) As they say, 'A great employee is 'x' times more valuable than a good employee' (I've put a value of 'x' as I've seen different values quoted for this parameter by different researchers). If that is true, what are you as an organization doing to recognize the 'value' of these great performers and retain them in the company?
An organization 'values' a potential hire based on the 'standardised' parameters of (a) number of years of experience (b) current compensation (c) current position (d) existing pay scale in the organization etc. The candidate is made an offer (position and salary) in the 'best interests' of the organization which turns out to 'under-value' the 'potential' of the candidate. The person joins the organization and turns out to be an extra-ordinary performer and adds value to the organization way beyond his brief. When the first performance cycle comes, unfortunately the company is not able to promote him because the minimum period an employee has to spend in the company before a promotion is 12 months. He is rated at the highest performance level and gets the 'best' raise possible in percentage terms. But because he was under-valued at the time of hire, a high percentage raise does not correspond to a high raise in absolute salary and he continues to be under-valued. At the same appraisal cycle, he sees his lesser performing colleagues who had spent more time in the organization getting promoted by virtue of being ahead of him in the 'waiting line' for promotion. Our protagonist feels dejected and de-motivated, but having the DNA of a high performer, he is again motivated by the challenges at work and continues adding value to the organization. The great appraisal fair comes calling again and our under-valued poster boy gets that long awaited promotion with a considerable raise in percentage terms. But, the fact that he was initially under-valued continues to offset the promotion and raise that has been doled out. Interestingly, the organization remains ignorant to the fact that a high performing employee has been under-valued and does nothing to correct this imbalance.
One fine day, revelation finally dawns on our hero that he is grossly under-valued by the organization and decides to quit his current job. When our hero breaks the news, it's received with extreme surprise and disappointment by the organization. Management goes over-board to pacify our protagonist and let him know how much he is valued by the organization. They also ask him what they can do to change his decision and some people even promise that anything can be done to keep him in the company (which will be carefully worded like, 'We can 'work' it out!). After couple of rounds of negotiation, both parties reach an agreement and our hero continues to be with the company. The employee is either promised an astronomical hike, or a long term foreign assignment or a certain role he had his eyes on.
What surprises me most is this reactive response from organizations - they seem to wake up only when they realise that an exceptional employee is resigning! HR and management talks about salary ranges, salary parity within the team, restrictions on promotion etc. to justify their weird decisions during an appraisal cycle, but when crisis hits (like when a high performer resigns) all these 'standards' seem irrelevant and insignificant. If this is not opportunism and hypocrisy, what is?!!
Here are my take-aways from this post:
(a) A high potential employee who is under-valued at the time of hire, will continue to be under-valued in the organization, unless the employee deliberately tries to change this condition.
(b) Standards defined for employee appraisals including salary ranges, parity within team etc. are not golden standards and can be altered as and when required by the management.
(c) There is no mechanism or process to measure the value of an employee, other than archaic employee appraisal mechanism that rates an employee based on colours, numbers or alphabets!
(d) As they say, 'A great employee is 'x' times more valuable than a good employee' (I've put a value of 'x' as I've seen different values quoted for this parameter by different researchers). If that is true, what are you as an organization doing to recognize the 'value' of these great performers and retain them in the company?
