how to balance the performance appraisal among departments, that is, between functional departments. To solve this problem, we should consider the following aspects:

1. Balance between assessment target value and scoring standard

1. Balance between company target value and department target value

When setting the target value of department assessment index, we should first consider how to realize the company target value and how the department target value can take over the company target value, so that the department target value can serve the company target value, so that all departments can consistently serve the company performance target value * * *. In addition, when setting the department target value, reference should be made to the completion of indicators.

2) Balance of grading standards between departments and positions of departments

The assessment indicators undertaken by functional departments are generally the company's strategic decomposition indicators, departmental responsibility indicators, annual key work of departments, etc.

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 those that are still difficult to complete under the condition of sufficient resources, mainly for those indicators that have not successfully completed records in the past three years; Ideal index: the level that can be achieved through hard work when the situation and conditions are good; Threshold indicators: indicators that all departments must achieve. The departmental responsibility indicators are mostly threshold indicators, and the annual key work indicators and strategic decomposition indicators are mostly ideal indicators and challenging indicators.

The balance of assessment can be ensured by setting the difficulty coefficient of the above three indicators, fixing the proportion of different indicators or setting bonus items. Taking the difficulty coefficient as an example, let the difficulty coefficients of the challenging indicator, the ideal indicator and the threshold indicator be 1.2, 1.1 and 1.8 respectively, and the weight of a threshold indicator be 11 (that is, the full score of this indicator is 11), and the score of completing this indicator is 8 (weight * difficulty coefficient). This can ensure the balance of assessment indicators of different functional departments. By the same token, we should also meet the above requirements when designing functional post indicators, so as to avoid the situation that the post assessment of the key performance of the department is low and the employee assessment of the daily work of the department is high.

2. Balance of assessment indicators

1) Balance between indicators broken down by company level and indicators derived from department responsibilities

The main purpose of designing indicators is to achieve the company's strategic objectives. Therefore, when designing assessment indicators for functional departments, we should first break down indicators from company level to departments to form key performance indicators (KPI indicators), and then design general performance indicators (CPI indicators) from the department's responsibilities, focusing on the company's strategic decomposition indicators. Ensure that functional departments can proceed from the interests of the company and avoid the phenomenon of fragmented departments. In the functional post indicators, it should also meet the above requirements.

2) Balance between qualitative and quantitative indicators

Qualitative indicators refer to indicators that cannot directly analyze the evaluation content through data calculation, and need to objectively describe and analyze the evaluation object to reflect the evaluation results; Quantitative indicators are assessment indicators that can be accurately defined in quantity, accurately measured and set performance targets.

For the design of quantitative indicators for functional departments, we can use Gribert's quartering tool to determine the names of indicators from four dimensions: 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 index design to minimize this generality and ambiguity. However, the assessment of functional departments should be based on quantitative indicators, supplemented by qualitative indicators.

if the functional departments use quantitative indicators for assessment, it will bring a lot of workload to the collection of assessment data, which will lead to time-consuming and labor-intensive 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

Many jobs in functional departments and functional positions are process-oriented, and there is no clear job output, especially the job dynamics of employees in functional departments are very strong, which is difficult to reflect in long-term business results. When designing indicators, the work plan indicators of process type account for a large proportion in a short assessment cycle, and the key performance assessment indicators of results should be set as much as possible in a long assessment cycle. In employee appraisal indicators, the proportion of process-based work plan indicators is more. The higher the management level, the less the weight of work plan in appraisal indicators, and the more the weight of key performance indicators. For example, the receptionist of the company has a front desk hygiene in the assessment, and there is no obvious output result. What kind of hygiene is up to standard, and there is no clear standard. Only process indicators can be assessed, and the assessment is set to be cleaned twice a day at the front desk, and it is required to be free of scraps of paper and other sundries.

third, the balance of assessment scores

1) the balance between functional departments

qualitative indicators account for a certain proportion in the assessment indicators of functional departments, and the assessment raters of different departments are different, which will inevitably lead to the phenomenon of strong subjectivity and different scales of scoring. Therefore, after the assessment, the assessment results need to be balanced before they can be used. After the grading is finished, first, the performance team will discuss the results, 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 the department score is 81 points and the difficulty coefficient of its indicators is 1.2, the final score will be 81*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 employees in departments are formulated by 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 comparability of performance among employees in various departments is weak. When the assessment scores of employees in different departments are unified, the original scores of employees can not be directly used, but can be adjusted in the following ways:

a) First, the department difficulty coefficient is set according to the different work nature of each functional department, and then the original scores of employees in each functional department are converted according to the formula before use. For example, if the employee's score is 81, and the department difficulty coefficient is 1.2, then the employee's final score is 81*1.2=96.

b) Use the "average processing" assessment score to link the department's assessment score with the employee's score, and then process the score. For example, if the employee's score is 81, the average score of employees in the department is 85, and the average score of employees in the company is 75, then the employee's final score is =81*75/85=71.59.

adopting the above methods can ensure that the employees within the department still maintain the original performance structure difference, avoid the risk that the indicators of employees or departments are too wide or too strict to some extent, prevent the phenomenon of deliberately lowering the difficulty of assessment indicators in order to improve their performance, and help employees to continuously improve their work and challenge difficult goals.

IV. Balance of the application of assessment results

1) Balance of performance bonus

The level of employee performance bonus is based on the company's benefits and departmental performance, so in the application of assessment results, employee performance bonus distribution and salary adjustment should be combined with the company's benefits and departmental performance. If the company benefits well, employees will also benefit. Employees in departments with excellent assessment results should also get more opportunities for performance bonuses and salary promotion. For example, when the assessment results are forcibly distributed, the assessment level is excellent, and the proportion of employees in the department who are assessed as excellent should be higher than that of excellent employees in departments with good assessment levels.

2) Balance in the application of performance results at different stages

According to the actual situation of the enterprise, the employee assessment of functional departments and functional posts is generally divided into monthly, quarterly, semi-annual and annual. The monthly and quarterly assessment focuses on some basic work and process work, while the semi-annual and annual assessment focuses on some results performance indicators. Therefore, in the application of performance bonus, salary adjustment, promotion, praise, training and other results, it is necessary to consider the balance of long-term, medium-term and short-term assessment results.

The above-mentioned balance method of performance appraisal of functional departments and functional posts is to avoid some problems caused by performance management from the aspects of performance management scheme and index design, and can solve various unfair phenomena in the performance appraisal process to a certain extent. However, in the actual performance management, it is necessary to continuously train those responsible for the assessment to improve their performance management and control capabilities, so that they can effectively implement the performance management plan, and the performance management system can serve the realization of corporate strategic goals more effectively.