Mr.
Mehta’s Dilemma: A Case of performance appraisal politics
(Case reflection)
Case summary: Rajesh was a hardworking and good performer, who rose to Senior Associate level
from trainee programmer in just 4 years, receiving 3 B’s and 2 A’s during his tenure of 5 years at
UTVC. He worked in a niche domain, where his level of expertise was difficult to find all over the
country. After the acquisition of UTVC by AXZ, he continued to work in the niche domain and enjoyed
the same pay, which is 25% higher than for a similar role at AXZ. He wished to move to consult
domain of AXZ, which had three criteria for eligibility to application-
1. The applicant had to be on the rolls of AXZ for the past 3 years.
2. The applicant needs to have 3 A’s in the past three consecutive years.
3. The applicant needs to qualify for the internal exam held for the post.
He had cleared the internal exam and already had 2 A’s at UTVC. To be eligible, he needed only a
rating of A in the current year. However, despite his best efforts, he got B rating, which disturbed
him. He went into an altercation with his manager Mr. Desai during his appeal hearing. He was not
ready to accept a B rating and his this obsession led him towards inappropriate behavior with his
manager, which was notified to Mr. Mehta, the Regional HR head. He then appealed to HR head for
reconsideration of his rating, expressed his concern about the indifference towards him by his
colleagues and other managers, and sought leave of 6 months to come out of his disturbed state of
mind. Mr. Mehta in turn offered him to go for research studies for a period of 2 years and later join
back at the same position with the same pay, to which Rajesh agreed. This way, he felt, he retained
the talent useful for the organization and provided an opportunity for career progression to Rajesh.
Dilemma: Whether Mr. Mehta is right in approving two year’s leave to Rajesh for higher studies, as
he may resign post-completion of his studies. Also, filling the vacuum left by Rajesh would not be
easy as he was working in a niche domain and there were a lot of projects coming in. Allowing him
leave at such a time would be hard to explain to the top management.
Was Rajesh’s reaction to his rating justified?
The reason for Rajesh’s disturbance was his performance rating of B which made him ineligible to
apply for consulting division, even after he met all his goals and performed well. Where at UTVC, the
rating allotted was absolute in nature, solely dependent on the individual’s performance, the rating
at AXZ was relative in nature and dependent on the relative performance of the individual as
compared to the other employees. Only the top 10% were to be awarded A. Further, the
performance assessment system was not well structured as the manager had the power to give it as
per his wish considering factors like seniority, age, experience, employee retention, prevention of
demotivation among employees, etc. Hence it was naturally a highly biased system. Mr. Desai’s
attempt to motivate one senior employee by giving an A led to the demotivation of another equally
deserved employee. So it was natural for Rajesh to get disturbed.
Was Mr. Desai right in awarding B to Rajesh?
Given the facts in the case, one thing is clear that the rating system was not structurally sound and
involved a lot of biasedness. Two people with same performance level may not get the same rating
given other factors like experience, age or any other criteria decided by the manager. However, the
system only creates this discrimination, as Mr. Desai had the option of only 1 in 10 to be awarded an
A. Given the same level of performance and less pay as compared to Rajesh, not awarding an A to
the relatively experienced employee would surely demotivate him which would not be good for the
organization. Rajesh was already higher in pay as compared to them and hence could afford a B
instead of A. Hence Mr. Desai is justified in awarding B to Rajesh.
Was Mr. Mehta right in his decision to sanction two years’ leave to Rajesh?
Owing to the discontent that arose in Rajesh due to the performance rating, Mr. Mehta was aware
that it was neither Rajesh’s fault nor Mr. Desai’s fault. It was the performance management system,
which made this discontent inevitable in someone or the other if they happen to perform equally
well. Rajesh was a talented person and the organization would surely benefit from his expertise,
which was difficult to find. So, it was apparently not difficult for Rajesh to seek a job at any other
firm. Hence Mr. Mehta is intentionally right in trying to retain him. If he denies his leave approval,
Rajesh had a high chance of quitting the firm as he was emotionally disturbed. Possibly, he was
seeking 6 months’ leave for searching for another job. Hence keeping him occupied and associated
with the organization while also satisfying his interests, study leave seems to be the best option,
even though there are chances that he may resign post-completion of his studies. The company is
not losing anything extra in providing him leave, as not sanctioning his leave may lead to his
resignation owing to the emotional trauma he was suffering. They needed to find his replacement
anyway. And given that there was another equally well-performing and experienced person on the
team and Rajesh’s core team with which he worked, they could manage Rajesh’s position for a while,
till they don’t get a new replacement. Hence Mr. Mehta is also right in his decision.
Who’s at fault?
To me, the performance evaluation system seems to be at fault. First, it is not structured as to
objectively compare two different performances. There could be multiple people meeting all their
goals and claiming to be a good performer. There was no guideline or direction as to how to assess
performances in such conditions and was left to the discretion of the manager, which made it highly
biased. The relative performance assessment system would always keep someone lower than the
other, even though they performed equally well, as only a limited number of employees could be
awarded A. These biased ratings also decided promotion and career opportunities, which made it
dissatisfactory for ambitious and hard-working employees like Rajesh. The system should be
structurally sound and objective in the assessment and must not take biased and relative ratings as
the basis of performance and career opportunities. The system could be made to provide equal
opportunities to all kinds of performers in terms of career opportunities. This would reduce the
discontent among the employees. Further, for factors like seniority, experience, or age, a separate
reward system could be brought up so that it need not be taken in the appraisal system, which would
make the system more objective, at the same time, serve to motivate all the employees to work
harder.
