Peer Ranking or Popularity Contest?

californian · July 2007

Wondering what people think of peer ranking for compensation/merit . . . is it accurate, useful, or just a popularity contest?

We have an employee who complained that a peer ranking system (which we are contemplating) is simply a popularity contest. He called the system an “unfair ” ans said that it keeps raises down for “the average guy.” He said that he is so disgusted by this practice that he is considering early retirement.

Any thoughts on the usefulness/fairness of peer ranking would be much appreciated.

blakefan · July 2007

i'd have some real doubts about this type of system. i can't imagine that an employee's peers are really as aware of his or her performance and the actual work the employee is doing like a supevisor/manager would. besides, i could certainly see a sytem like this turn into a popularity contest. i would stick with having your managers do performance evals and raises.

regdunlop · July 2007

i agree with blakefan. you probably could come up with some factors where peer review would be useful, but overall, performance should be left to those who are in a position to rate an employee objectively and accurately. peers could give an employee bad scores because they have a conflict of interest (e.g. they think that if they give a good score they would be hurting their own chances for a promotion), or they could base their scores on how much they 'like' the person.

RuthG · July 2007

Also, some employees will be dishonest by giving their peer an inflated rating so as to no anger a coworker. This is equally bad.

mhobbie · September 2007

Raises seems to be the real issue. What is the normal considerations for a raise? Do peers have the needed knowledge to judge if some one is doing there job, going above the norm, benefiting the company, saving money, customer service? What about the weight of reprimands and such that might be in employee files? I would think that the potential for this to be very furtile ground for harrasment would be big. I would say reconsider. What do you messure?

What qualities and accomplishments would warrant a raise?

ntk104 · October 2007

In a perfect world this might be a really good idea. However, in the real world I think this idea needs more thought. I agree with the employee who thought this might turn out as a popularity contest (remember high school and choosing someone for a particular role). A peer should be able to judge how the person next to him/her is doing but that is not always the case. You are the one that is judging how well to how poorly an employee is doing. Observation on your part and outcome of projects given is the best recorder of how someone is doing.

lancefan · October 2007

This does sound like a popularity contest. Whatever happened to sticking with the basics of evaluating a person within a job? Tools such as job descriptions, goals, performance measures, manager/ employee feedback etc. exist for a reason...because they have been tested and they work.

PraiseStar · November 2007

What is the goal of this type of contest?

TXHRGuy · December 2007

We already know from research that performance appraisal needs to be much more technical than it is usually practiced. The failings in process are what typically make it more of a popularity contest than it could be. I don't think that peer rankings are a very good idea simply because peers aren't generally trained to do appraisals on their peers and, even if they were trained, may not be in a position to do things over time that would make the appraisals worthwhile (e.g., keep a diary of performance notes). I haven't read in this area in a long time, but here's a good source:

http://tinyurl.com/3ywvxa

californian · February 2008

Thanks to all for your feedback . . very helpful!

efeldman · February 2008

In my experience, tying compensation/increases to peer reviews does not work. Employees form alliances to give each other good reviews and many people who are less interpersonally savvy, but excellent performers do not get recognized. It simply rewards people for the wrong thing.

Peer reviews are useful and a general performance measure and when determining and designing teams, but not at all when they are linked to compensation.

bokel · February 2008

[quote user="californian"]

Wondering what people think of peer ranking for compensation/merit . . . is it accurate, useful, or just a popularity contest?

We have an employee who complained that a peer ranking system (which we are contemplating) is simply a popularity contest. He called the system an “unfair ” ans said that it keeps raises down for “the average guy.” He said that he is so disgusted by this practice that he is considering early retirement.

Any thoughts on the usefulness/fairness of peer ranking would be much appreciated.

[/quote]

I would only use that kind of data for development purposes, i.e., not comp decisions.

Peer Ranking or Popularity Contest?

Comments