Calibrate Employee Performance Through SuccessFactors

  • by Prashant Rastogi, Associate Manager, Accenture
  • April 3, 2013
Learn how to configure the calibration capability in SuccessFactors, which helps to achieve objective and fair employee performance reviews.
Key Concept

Compa-ratio is short for comparative ratio. It is calculated by dividing an employee’s current salary by the current market rate. Compa-ratios are position specific. Each position has a salary range that includes a minimum, a midpoint, and a maximum, and these three values represent industry averages for the position. For example, a Compa-Ratio of 1.00 (or 100%) means that the employee is paid exactly what the industry average pays and is at the midpoint for the salary range. A compa-ratio of 0.75 means that the employee is paid 25% below the industry average and therefore is at risk of seeking employment elsewhere at a higher pay that is perceived as equitable. A compa-ratio of 1.15 means that the employee is paid above the industry average.

For talent-driven organizations, performance is the biggest factor in determining an employee’s success within the company. As a result, the performance review process has become increasingly vital as an evaluation tool. A big challenge facing these companies is how to keep these important employee performance reviews fair and balanced. SuccessFactors’ employee performance review calibration functionality makes this process objective and removes any bias.

Performance reviews have a wider impact than just measuring the performance of employees. Since promotions, increments, bonuses, and other key career decisions are based on the results of the performance-review process, it is important that consistent and equitable measures are used throughout the organization to rate all the employees fairly. A well-designed calibration process can ensure that this happens. Here are some problems that can crop up when evaluating employees when a strong performance calibration process is not in place:

  1. Managers not following a bell-curve process consistently when rating employees. (The bell-curve concept is commonly used by companies when rating employee performance; it enables them to track and rate employees by best—and worst—performers, and reward them accordingly.)
  2. The pay-for-performance strategy is ineffective because the underlying performance review process is tainted.
  3. Managers introduce bias into the process when evaluating the performance of their own team members, either by being too tough or too soft when awarding ratings.
  4. Employee performance is not compared fairly with their peers or colleagues who are doing similar work across the organization, either on the same or different teams.
  5. There is no way to accurately identify top performers; as a result, top performers are not rewarded appropriately.
  6. There is no succession plan in place for the organization.
  7. Opportunities for growth are not identified and shared with employees during the performance-review process.

Prashant Rastogi

Prashant Rastogi works at Accenture as an SAP HCM associate manager. He has been working in SAP ERP HCM for the past seven years in various assignments. Prashant has experience in implementing ESS, MSS, SAP ECM, Performance Management, Succession Planning, Talent Management, OM, PA, and Nakisa. Prashant has an MBA (HR) along with a master’s in law and labor welfare. He is also an engineer in IT.

See more by this author


Comments

No comments have been submitted on this article. 


Please log in to post a comment.

To learn more about subscription access to premium content, click here.