Year end is here; and so is the time for performance ratings. The objectives of performance assessment these days are getting complex to be laid down. At Macro level you see S&P and Moody's rate differently on largest economies for their performance of 2009. For a bystander, it gets confusing when same economy is rated differently by different processes. It raises questions on whether Performance need to be assessed only on the basis of successes and failures during the period or does it need to recognise the efforts made by economies to come out of recession, and therefore the assessment rating should encourage at these times, rather than demotivate or confuse with lower ratings. Richard Koo, Japanese Economist argued today, on Bloomberg, that an assessment at this stage is dicey and should not be hastly made.
Taking cue, at Micro level, this brings focus on the need to change duration of performance cycles to suit the objectives. Normal drivers are the need to grant increments over financial years and therefore the assessment period need to be tagged to financial years. This can be cutting once leg according to shoe. What perhaps neded is a more dynamic performance assessment format to support a process that gives scope for extending the assessment time to such durations needed to achieve the objectives. Iam yet come across systems that can be dynamic to such needs. One need to delink routine acts of increments etc from appraisal systems, and make it linked to strategic objectives with sufficient allowance to tie it to the necessary duration for achieveing those objectives.
