The Cool Call Centre Ltd. has been in operation for the past 15 years. There are 350 hourly paid employees spread over 5 floors.

There are three main call centre jobs:

1. To receive and transmit a large volume of requests by telephone, providing product support and dealing with information inquiries from consumers.
2. Outgoing calls for telemarketing, product services and debt collection are also made.
3. In addition, there is a 'contact centre' where there is collective handling of letters, faxes, live chat and e-mails for a wide range of clients.

The call centre employees rotate through each of the three areas twice a year.

Performance assessments entail a face-to-face meeting between each staff member and his\her manager or team leader once per year. The maximum score available per employee under the system is 200. The score attained at these meetings by each employee is the main determinant of their annual bonus payment.

Naturally, all of the employees push for the award of the highest score at these meetings. Frequently the meeting descends into a negotiation process between the two parties, as the reviewer tries to reduce the scores being awarded whilst the reviewee tries to increase the scores being awarded. This process is compounded by the difficulty in measuring some of the subjective criteria being assessed.

As a result, the Human Resources department applies a 'calibration' technique which serves to 'average out' the scores across the company. It does this by collecting the scores awarded for each employee, calculating the company-wide average and the average for each section therein. It then adjusts the individual scores awarded for each employee in each section to bring it into line with the company average. As a result, if the section's average was 180 and the company average was 150, each employee in the section would have his\her average reduced by 30 points. Likewise, if the section's average was 150 and the company average was 180, each employee in the section would have his\her average increased by 30 points. The bonus payments are awarded based upon the revised scores.

Because of the various revisions, the performance management or appraisal system is held in very low regard by both employees and their managers or team leaders. The feeling amongst managers is that there's no point in giving accurate assessments, and the higher the score they award the better for staff: management relations. Likewise, the employees are very frustrated with the system. This was one of the reasons that the employees sought unionization nearly two years ago. The union drive was narrowly defeated. As well, the annual turn-over rate is 20% which is 8% above the industry average.

Alongside this frustration, top management the board of directors are aware that the incidence and extent of underperformance in the company is unacceptably high. They are on the verge of losing their competitive edge for speedy customer call resolution. This could translate into losing contracts.

QUESTION TO ANSWER:

As happens in too many organizations, a misalignment of a performance management system and actual employee rewards has occurred. This has led to a change in employee behaviour. How are the employees demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the performance management system? How is this impacting the organization?