Remember grade school? (ah, yes…eating paste and playing dodge ball…*sigh*)
Unless you were home-schooled or grew up on a hippie commune, it’s likely that you were subjected to the A-B-C-D-F system that 99% of all schools in the United States use to grade academic performance.
The obvious observation is that, in this system, A’s are the goal. A’s are the top grade, the best evaluation you can hope to earn. “Straight-A student” is a decidedly good label to have affixed to your name.
The not-so-obvious observations is that there is only one classification that signifies meeting the requirements of the class - the grade of A. Every other grade, from B to F, communicates varying degrees of substandard performance. B’s tell you that you weren’t quite good enough, and F’s tell you that you missed the mark by a mile. But all of them communicate varying degrees of missed expectations.
So, we grow up learning that there’s one classification for “meeting expectations” - the A - and four classifications for “failing to meet expectations” - the B, C, D, and F grades.
A New Approach to Measuring a Candidate’s Prior Job Performance
Most business managers dread performance evaluations, because they’re arbitrary. Why are they arbitrary? Because there’s rarely any objective criteria like numbers or metrics that tell us whether or not someone has performed to expectations. As a matter of fact, research shows that most employees in America aren’t aware of the expectations that their managers have of their performance. And for anyone who’s had the task of conducting performance reviews, you’ve probably worked on a Excellent-Good-Fair-Poor scale not unlike the A-B-C-D-F system used in academia. And you’ve probably doled out reviews with the vast majority of responses being Goods and Excellents.
As a business owner or manager, do you accept performance that’s anything less than “getting the job done”? Are you ok with a missed deadline here and there? With an employee who provides great customer service ‘most’ of the time? With someone who has marginal communication skills? Of course not! You demand excellence, every day. That is to say, why should I as a manager feel compelled to rate an employee at the top of the scale for doing the job that I am paying them a salary to do? Why is simply meeting expectations deserving of a rating of Excellent? Isn’t that what I pay someone to do…meet expectations that I set?
So why, then, do we constrain our thinking with a performance management scale that puts “getting the job done” performance - getting an A - at the absolute top of the scale? What’s there to shoot for above that? What would happen if you had a system that makes fulfilling the requirements of the job in the middle of the scale, and gives your staff an opportunity to exceed expectations?
I’m spending so much time here discussing performance evaluations because when we’re hiring a new employee, it’s our job as the hiring manager to evaluate the candidates job performance over their entire career. And as I’ve shown, doing that using existing methods makes performance evaluations little more than subjective exercises.
One of the principal issues that drove me to build the Ionix Hiring System was the fact the rest of the world assumed getting an A was the pinnacle of performance. I just don’t buy into that “B’s and C’s are acceptable” mentality. So, I decided to create a scoring system that placed ”getting an A” performance - or, in other words, performing to expectations - smack in the middle of the scale. I also wanted to create a system based on a performance management philosophy that posits “anything less than an ‘A’ is unacceptable,” and disqualifies a person from employment with your company based on substandard performance at any level.
To put it another way, the system that I’m teaching you requires A-level performance in each competency as a prerequisite of employment. Promotability and advancement is only possible when you exceed expected performance. This Ionix Hiring System shows you how to conduct pre-employment performance reviews on candidates so that you know who you’re dealing with…before you make the hire.
The Five Point Performance Scale
The Ionix Hiring System uses a five point scale for scoring performance and aptitude across eleven core competencies. Before I go on, I want to hammer home the concept that getting a ‘3′ in this system is equivalent to the academic grade of ‘A’.
Again, getting a 3 = getting an A. 3= A. Be there mentally before continuing. Ready? Great.
-
5 - Exceptional. Consistently, over time, exhibits all aspects of the competency in an exceptional manner. Significantly exceeds expectations on all objectives provided. Always achieves exceptional results well beyond those expected of someone at their salary level or grade. A rating of 5 indicates performance two levels above the expected performance level. Note: usage of this rating is highly limited (>5%)
-
4 - Exceeds. Consistently exceeds the normal expectations for the competency. Exceeds expectations on all objectives provided. Achieves results above and beyond those expected of someone at their salary grade or level. A rating of 4 indicates performance one level above the expected performance level.
-
3 - Meets. Consistently meets all expectations of the competency in a fully capable manner. Achieves results that are expected of someone at their salary grade or level, including meeting goals and objectives. A rating of 3 indicates performance that is expected of someone at their salary grade or level.
-
2 - Marginal. Performs many aspects of the competency in a capable manner. Meets some goals and objectives, but requires improvement in order to perform at the level that is expected of someone at their salary grade or level. May require more supervision than expected in order to meet guidelines for the competency. Could be the performance level of those new to a position. A rating of 2 indicates performance that does not consistently meet expectations.
-
1 - Unsatisfactory. Unacceptable performance suggesting a lack of willingness and/or ability to perform to the level of expectation for the competency. Separation or reassignment is indicated unless performance improves significantly. Requires excessive supervision.
70% of your candidates will be solid 3’s in the majority of the 11 competencies. 10% of them will be 4’s (and, occasionally, 5’s) in more than 1 or 2 of these competencies. 20% of them will fall into the sub-3 range on 1 or more competencies. The implications are straightforward: those candidates in the sub-3 range are less likely to be top performers, and therefore shouldn’t be hired by those managers who wish to build a high-performance team. Those candidate who consistently exhibit 3’s across all competencies are the lifeblood of your business. Those that exhibit 4 and 5 behavior are the ones you throw your heart (and money) into retaining and improving. They get the perks, the promotions, and the recognition.
You build your company around them.
