1, vertical assessment coefficient setting
Part of the person in charge of A on the department's performance, the performance of the whole staff is responsible for his post payroll coefficient is very obvious, A post payroll coefficient = departmental assessment coefficients (in general, the departmental assessment coefficients is the assessment coefficients of the person in charge of the person in charge of the assessment coefficients, but of course, the person in charge of the person also bear some personal indicators (such as employee turnover, qualification rate) etc.), then it becomes A post salary = the person in charge of performance pay base * departmental assessment coefficient * personal assessment coefficient).
If the department has a subgroup, the group has a class underneath, whether it will still be a multiplier relationship, it is necessary to consider separately, the B employee's performance payroll coefficient = B personal assessment coefficient × class assessment coefficient × group assessment coefficient × departmental assessment coefficients, I think it is undesirable, because the B employee's performance may be played and the class, the group, the department's level of performance in correlation with the successive decrease in the employee may be doing a good job again Because some employees do not do a good job and lead to class assessment, group assessment worse, and thus the B employee job payroll coefficient will be very low, the employee's morale is a blow, it is recommended that the assessment coefficients using a sub-weighted sum, and then multiplied by the employee indicator performance, or directly based on the degree of employee performance can be hung on the class level.
2, horizontal assessment coefficient set
Specifically to an employee C, his key indicators may have a number of, let's say C1, C2, C3, C performance score = (C1 points "C2 points" C3 points) × C1 assessment coefficients × C2 assessment coefficients × C3 assessment coefficients × departmental assessment coefficients T. There are a lot of HR managers who may think that the performance of the C score = [C1 points], C1 points × C1 points × C3 assessment coefficient × Departmental assessment coefficients. Many HR managers may think that C's performance score = [C1 score × C1 assessment coefficient ﹢ C2 score × C2 assessment coefficient ﹢ C3 score × C3 assessment coefficient] × departmental assessment coefficient T, C1 assessment coefficient ﹢ C2 assessment coefficient ﹢ C3 assessment coefficient = 1. I can't say that the latter is wrong, but the latter often leads to the employee's work to grasp the big to put the small, and can't play the role of comprehensively improve the level of work, the personal goal and the organization's goal is contrary to each other. The former is a cumulative relationship, all good will be better; there is a poor performance results will not be too good; if a good number of scores are worse, it will be even worse, so this design is a great promotion of employees to work hard.
Most of the work of C1, C2 and C3 is done by the employees alone, so as long as the employees have the right method and actively work hard, they can jump up and eat the grapes, provided that the performance targets are set reasonably. In fact, the cumulative multiplication method and the sub-weighted sum method are a means of control and a way to urge employees not to waste any of the work; and the sub-weighted sum through the design of the weight actually conveys the company's emphasis on certain business is different, the theory is that the employees will be prioritized to complete the business performance objectives of the weighted high.
I think the assessment of the staff of the various indicators of the relevance of the case, the wage payment coefficient can be used to multiply the method, because the work will be in the staff's efforts to get the appropriate reflection, as long as the requirements of the hard work will be the results; and if the relevance of the various jobs is not high, should be taken to sub-weighting method, because the relevance of the various jobs is poor, the impact of the factors are not the same, if multiplied will be Because of the results of a work of unsatisfactory results caused by the overall performance is worse, but not necessarily the problem of individual employees.
Therefore, the employee's work assessment indicators correlation is strong, indicating that the factors affecting similar, as long as the employee's efforts will be some performance, if a single work performance is poor, it will only be the employee's problem, you can take the method of cumulative multiplication; however, if the employee's work assessment indicators correlation is poor, it shows that the factors affecting the various jobs are different, diverse, the employee's efforts may not be sure to ensure that each job is very good, so it should be divided into two parts. Good completion, so should be used sub-weighting method, that is, in the case of affirmation of the employee's efforts to determine the appropriate performance.
3, the department (team) coefficient linked to the way
The above two parts of the solution to what kind of way to issue performance pay is more incentivizing, the following I will single out when the personal assessment coefficients and departmental assessment coefficients (class, group or team, etc.) linked to some of the methods:
1) the actual performance. This is the most common, is to the department (class, group or team, etc.) of the actual assessment results transformed into an assessment coefficient linked to individual performance. That is, the employee's salary = performance pay base * personal assessment coefficient * departmental assessment coefficients, this way is the most simple, but often make the departmental leadership only to look inward, but not outward (taking into account other departments), which does not comply with the requirements of the customer-centered process, will result in inter-departmental coordination and cooperation is not smooth, can not improve efficiency.
2) Linked to the performance of other departments. This approach takes into account the above issues, that is, the employee's salary = performance pay base * personal assessment coefficient * (departmental assessment scores / average score of all departmental assessments), this approach will enable the formation of interdepartmental competition, can activate a pool of stagnant water. Of course, there will be a problem, that is, the business sector tends to be wide open, the assessment coefficient will sometimes be 1.4, sometimes 0.8,; and functional departments will be more stable, often hovering around 1.0. At this point, in the application of the time you can add a leadership adjustment factor, that is, the employee's salary = performance pay base * personal assessment coefficient * (departmental assessment scores / average score of all departmental assessments) * leadership adjustment factor. Leadership adjustment factor is the need to lead the actual work of the departments, as well as the market situation, competitors and industry development, such as a comprehensive assessment of a coefficient of adjustment, coefficient range is generally (0.8-1.2), this time to consider is the environment, not that I'm good on the line, but everyone is good, I'm not the best. For example, in 2009, the real estate industry is developing rapidly, the company's development is not able to reach the average development speed above the need to carefully consider.
3) Total control method. This time the company is based on a strategy to control the total amount of performance bonuses, that is, to control the cost of labor in place. For example, a corporate kitchen department, personal performance appraisal is not too good quantitative or assessment, so the company will be assessed on the department, the bonus directly to the department for secondary distribution, the company's Human Resources Department is unlikely to interfere. At this point, basically the distribution model is, employee performance pay = total departmental performance pay * (the post salary * personal performance appraisal coefficient / all post salary multiplied by the sum of their respective performance appraisal coefficients)