The content I’m going to talk about is just a general case and does not explain a specific industry.
The purpose of a method
of assessing employee performance based solely on outcomes is to rank employees by outcome.
In such a simple group, employees who achieve a lot of results are highly evaluated, and those who are less successful are evaluated less.
However, personnel evaluation based on results is not the purpose, and the original purpose exists separately. Needless to say, the original purpose is to control labor costs.
The expansion of labor costs cannot be compensated by sales. The only way to stop the expansion of labor costs is to curb labor costs.
The easiest way to do that is to rank each employee by outcome.
Employees are ranked as a preparatory step for headcount reduction.
And one day, the number of employees begins to decrease. Labor costs will be curtailed from the following month.
All that remains are the top-ranked employees who produce a lot of results. However, while those who do not produce much results have been reduced, unfortunately the amount of work will not be reduced.
When we manipulate something
we anticipate the outcome of the manipulation. If the manipulated result is not what we expected, we will start over.
For example, when tying shoelaces, or when persuading someone, or when boiling water.
After assuming the consequences of manipulating something, we begin manipulating something. This is one of the characteristics of humankind.
So what do you think of the following? If a result matches our assumptions, we wonder what this means.
If the predictions and results match, it means success. No problem!
Such observations are common. No one doubts because it is common.
But if the results are almost certainly clear, are we not correcting our predictions?
In other words, wasn’t the question named prediction created from the answer named result?
If something like the above happens, it can be said that the result manipulated the prediction.
In the first place, in industries where labor cost control is attracting attention as a top priority for cost reduction, even if the number of employees is reduced, the overall cost will not be reduced.
That is because such an industry requires a large amount of human resources.
There is still too much work left that only humans can do. No one would be able to automate or digitize this.
So is it pointless to rank employees? I don’t think so.
At least, the ranking results will encourage those who are thinking about changing jobs.
Samsung to record its highest sales in Q3 from increased chip prices | ZDNet… Sales and operating profit increased 9% and 27%, respectively, from a year prior. …
That’s all for today’s post. Thank you
Comments