"Many employees overestimate their performance"

SAP management apparently wants to evaluate the "performance" of its employees more strictly. Occupational psychologists believe that feedback is important. However, standardized evaluations require caution - for both sides.

According to a media report, SAP would like to divide its employees into three groups: High achievers or "performers", who can hope for higher bonuses; below them would be "achievers", who meet expectations; and lastly "improvers", who need to improve. Employee representatives criticize that this increases work pressure and puts the relationship of trust between managers and employees to the test. Even the outgoing head of HR is distancing himself. Business psychologists also have question marks.

Occupational psychologist Ludwig Andrione believes that feedback and suggestions for improvement are fundamentally valuable, especially in our individualized society. However, in an interview with ntv.de, he explains that the decisive factor is the how and the goal behind it. Andrione believes that mistrust and the idea that many employers think employees are lazy is misplaced. "We too often think it's down to one person, and underestimate the environmental variables," says the Head of the Business Psychology Section of the Professional Association of German Psychologists.

"We think the individual has to change, for example through workshops, but perhaps poor performance is not down to the person," explains Andrione. "Sometimes the environmental variables need to change." In some cases, the supposedly poor performers have even made suggestions themselves, but these have got stuck with their superiors. However, the effort to change working conditions can be worthwhile, says Andrione. "People who are doing well work better." According to the business psychologist, this can be achieved through feedback, appreciation, trust in employees, finding solutions together and qualifications.

A lot has usually happened before the zero-buck attitude

"Evaluation systems are also often too narrow to do justice to complex life situations," says the psychologist. Circumstances such as a person's opportunities or burdens such as an illness are given little consideration. Andrione also sees a certain risk of alienating committed employees through a grading system. And even for the manpower of less committed employees, a replacement must first be found if a company wants to get rid of them in this way.

As Andrione explains, a lot has happened before employees have a zero-buck attitude. Rarely has someone applied for a job in order to make a lazy living. "Anyone with this attitude has usually been put off, for example because promises were not kept, there was a lack of support from colleagues or more and more was put on someone's plate." Even someone who gives their all at work will then hit the brakes at some point. According to the psychologist, this is actually correct in principle: "You have to look after yourself."

Psychologist Laura Klimecki, who advises managers and entrepreneurs, nevertheless finds an evaluation system for employees helpful - for both employers and employees. In her opinion, companies can only improve if they measure their performance, as she explains in an interview with ntv.de. "However, a grading system is useless in itself if I don't show employees how the individual can develop and improve." For example, anyone with a grade of three needs to be explained step by step how they can achieve a two and be supported in doing so.

Men tend to overestimate themselves

In the eyes of the management consultant, it is not only "only fair" to the employer, but also to the employees when performance is assessed. "The worst punishment for a good employee is to tolerate a bad one. That's how I demotivate those who perform very well." Klimecki doubts that it is a low single-digit percentage of those who need to improve their performance. "My guess is that the percentage is higher." However, the distribution depends on the industry.

According to the psychologist, an assessment is first and foremost a comparison between self-perception and the perception of others. This can often be unpleasant: "Many people overestimate their own performance," says Klimecki. Similar to driving school, where many students think they are well prepared, but then more than a third fail the theory test. According to Klimecki, there are gender differences: "Men tend to overestimate their own performance, while women tend to underestimate it."

Without a reality check, those who overestimate themselves cannot improve, says Klimecki. However, if it turns out that an employee is not performing as expected, the reason may not just be laziness or a lack of qualifications. An assessment can also show that processes in the company are not well organized. One option: someone has too many tasks. "If I overtax people, then they simply don't perform," says Klimecki.

"Performers are not afraid of evaluation"

Another reason for poor performance: too many employees working on one project. For example, it has been shown that the more colleagues work on the same project, the less effort people put in. At the same time, this can also contribute to a feeling of being overwhelmed, for example because someone receives too many emails in CC. "Sometimes it makes more sense to reduce the number of project team members in order to increase performance and quality," says the expert.

However, a standardized evaluation can also reveal that an employee is overburdened in terms of content. In Klimecki's opinion, they should then be given the chance to develop further, for example through further training. If the person concerned still does not meet the performance requirements after a certain period of time, there is a human problem, says Klimecki. In her opinion, it is then necessary to clarify whether someone is not making an effort or whether they are weakened by illness or private crises, for example.

Klimecki does not fear a "culture of fear" as a result of a grading system. "People who perform well are not afraid of being assessed," says the psychologist. "Performers have a different mindset: they expect feedback during an assessment that will help them to improve." Those who rate their own performance as good but fear that their employer will see it differently are worried.

Standard assessment as a starting point for improvement

The consultant finds the attitude "You have to take me as I am - I won't change" problematic. Because in our society, those who can best adapt to current circumstances "survive". School grades are not always fair, but Klimecki believes that they help "to get a feel for a situation and to quantify it". An evaluation system is a tool for identifying problem areas.

A standardized system may not be the ideal way to improve performance. However, Klimecki believes that an individual assessment of each employee would take considerably more time. "Companies often don't have that." A standard system is a good starting point. "As an employer, I first have to see where I stand."

Read also:

Despite SAP's plan to categorize employees into three performance groups, occupational psychologist Ludwig Andrione highlights the importance of considering environmental variables instead of solely blaming individuals for poor performance. He suggests that feedback, appreciation, trust, finding solutions together, and qualifications can improve performance.

In addressing the SAP case, business psychologist Laura Klimecki emphasizes the necessity of evaluating employees for improvement purposes, but she insists on providing clear feedback and support for employees to develop and improve their performance.

Source: www.ntv.de