Forums

My team consists of 3 people. Each fills a unique position within the company, i.e they are the only ones that do that particular job. In contrast, most examples mentioned on the podcasts refer to teams of customer service reps or sales people implying they all do roughly the same job and thus can distinguish themselves based on a single role.

They are all great at what they do, but there are no top or bottom performers - just them. So, with job descriptions, O3 notes, customer feedback, and goals in hand, am I doing all I can to avoid lumping them all together?

If I provide identical merit increases based on company-provided criteria, how do I manage what could be perceived as the undesired "peanut butter" effect? That is, each were reviewed in the context of their own jobs, but they work in the same group led by the same manager. And they happened to get the same increase.

Hope that makes sense. Has anyone had experience with this scenario?

Thanks.

BJ_Marshall's picture

They should each have performance plans that lay out objective measures for adequate performance. So how are your directs performing relative to their plans? If you've been having O3s with them and giving them feedback, then you should have enough information to justify your assessment.

MT has a bunch of 'casts on performance reviews. I strongly encourage you check them out.

If your doling out merit increases per company policy, I'd ask your HR department for more guidance if you want it. Otherwise, if you're sticking to the company policy, you should be safe.

BJ

jhack's picture

Performance is relative to the standards you've set for them. If someone meets the standard, and another significantly exceeds their standard, that latter person gets a larger raise.

If you've got three folks who all meet the same level vs. their standards, then their merit raises are same.

The key is that you can justify the number for each person based on that person's performance against the standard. If you have that data, then you shouldn't worry.

John