SAP management apparently wants to evaluate the “performance” of its employees more strictly. Industrial psychologists believe feedback is important. However, caution is advised when it comes to standardized assessments – for both sides.
According to a media report, SAP would like to divide its employees into three groups: top performers or “performers” who can hope for higher bonuses; These include “achievers” who meet expectations; and most recently “Improvers”, who need to improve. Employee representatives criticize that the work pressure increases and the relationship of trust between managers and employees is put to the test. Even the outgoing human resources manager distances himself. Business psychologists also have question marks.
Industrial psychologist Ludwig Andrione believes feedback and suggestions for improvement are fundamentally valuable, especially in our individualized society. But what matters is how and the goal behind it, he explains in an interview with ntv.de. Andrione believes mistrust and the idea that many employers have that employees are lazy are inappropriate. “Too often we think it’s up to one person and that the environmental variables are underestimated,” says the head of the business psychology section of the professional association of German psychologists.
“We think the individual needs to change, for example through workshops, but perhaps the lack of performance is not the person’s fault,” explains Andrione. “Sometimes the environment variables need to change.” In some cases, the supposedly underperforming people even made suggestions themselves, but these got stuck with their superiors. However, the effort to change working conditions could be worth it, says Andrione. “Those who are doing well work better.” According to the business psychologist, this can be achieved in addition to feedback through appreciation, trust in the employees, joint solution finding and qualifications.
A lot has usually happened before the situation gets to zero
“Evaluation systems are often too narrow to do justice to complex life situations,” says the psychologist. Circumstances such as a person’s chances or stresses such as an illness are given little consideration. Andrione also sees a certain risk of alienating committed employees through a grading system. And even for the labor of those less willing to work, a replacement must first be found if a company gets rid of them in this way.
As Andrione explains, a lot has usually happened before employees become unresponsive. Rarely does anyone apply for a job just to make a lazy living. “Those who have such an attitude have usually been alienated, for example because promises were not kept, there was a lack of support from colleagues or someone was being burdened with more and more.” Even someone who gives everything in their job has to slow down at some point. According to the psychologist, this is actually true in principle: “You have to take care of yourself.”
Psychologist Laura Klimecki, who advises managers and entrepreneurs, still finds an evaluation system for employees helpful – for both employers and employees. In her opinion, companies can only improve if they measure their performance, as she explains in an interview with ntv.de. “A grading system in itself is of no use if I don’t show employees how the individual can develop and improve.” For example, anyone who gets a grade of three must be explained step by step how they can get a grade two and be supported in doing so.
Men tend to overestimate themselves
In the management consultant’s eyes, it is “only fair” not only for the employer but also for the employees when performance is evaluated. “The worst punishment for good employees is to tolerate a bad one. This demotivates those who perform very well.” Klimecki doubts that those who need to improve their performance are in the low single-digit percentage. “My guess is that the proportion is higher.” However, the distribution depends on the industry.
According to the psychologist, an assessment is first of all a comparison between self-perception and the perception of others. This can often be unpleasant: “Many people overestimate their own performance,” says Klimecki. Similar to driving school, where many students think they are well prepared, but then more than a third fail the theory test. According to Klimecki, there are gender differences: “Men tend to overestimate their own performance, while women tend to underestimate it.”
Without a reality check, those who overestimate themselves cannot improve, says Klimecki. However, if it turns out that an employee is not performing as expected, the reason may not just be laziness or a lack of qualifications. An assessment can also show that processes in the company are not well organized. One option: Someone has too many tasks. “If I overwhelm people, then they just don’t perform,” says Klimecki.
“Performers are not afraid of evaluation”
Another reason for poor performance: too many employees working on a project. It has been shown, for example, that people put in less effort the more colleagues work on the same project. At the same time, this can also contribute to a feeling of being overwhelmed, for example because someone receives too many emails in CC. “Sometimes it makes more sense to reduce the number of project employees in order to increase performance and quality,” says the expert.
However, a standardized assessment can also reveal that an employee is overwhelmed in terms of content. Then, in Klimecki’s eyes, he should be given a chance to develop further, for example through further training. If the person affected still does not meet the performance requirements after a certain period of time, there is a human problem, says Klimecki. In her opinion, it is then important to clarify whether someone is not making an effort or whether they are weakened by illness or private crises, for example.
Klimecki is not afraid of a “culture of fear” as a result of a grading system. “Anyone who performs well is not afraid of an evaluation,” says the psychologist. “Performers have a different mindset: When they are assessed, they expect feedback that will enable them to improve even further.” Those who rated their performance as good but feared that their employer would see it differently were worried.
Standard assessment as a start for improvement
The counselor finds the attitude “You have to accept me as I am – I won’t change” problematic. Because in our society, those who can best adapt to current circumstances “survive”. School grades are not always fair, but in Klimecki’s opinion they help “to get a feel for a situation and to quantify it.” An evaluation system is an instrument for identifying problem areas.
A standardized system may not be the ideal way to improve performance. But an individual assessment of each individual would take significantly more time, says Klimecki. “Companies often don’t have that.” A standard system is a good starting point. “As an employer, I first have to see where I stand.”