The new minimum wage goes into effect from January every year, but Japanese companies tend to look around and try to find a way to cut corners, with many companies making payments retroactively to January, with actual payments starting in February or April. I think they are currently in the middle of waiting and watching the situation around them and negotiating with the labor union. Under such circumstances, the part where we actually negotiate with the labor union is the base increase, and the part where we wait and see is the average rate of salary increase, which includes the evaluation of each employee. How are salary increases evaluated?

[“Normal” guidelines]

Generally, wages are evaluated based on ability, and bonuses are evaluated based on performance. Therefore, I think that the evaluation items are different, but I often see cases where each item is quantified as ``5: Very good, 4: Excellent, 3: Fair, 2: Slightly poor, 1: Very poor.'' Since wages have already been set according to the employee's position and duties, it is natural that the evaluation is not relative to all employees, but relative to what is considered "normal" for each employee. However, I often see companies that do not have a set definition of what is "normal." For example, the level of an ``ordinary manager'' is different from the level of an ``ordinary operator.'' Therefore, it is necessary to define each normal objectively. This would require each employee to define their own division of duties, which unfortunately has not yet been done in many Japanese companies. So how can we set normal guidelines when we haven't set the division of duties or level of achievement for each person?

For example, what would happen if you said, ``The employee is working to the best of his or her abilities to be 100% satisfied in the performance of the position and duties assigned to him/her.'' This is a fairly high level of "normal". This is because it is usually difficult to achieve 100% satisfaction. Therefore, employees who are rated ``average'' are considered to be quite excellent. Whether it is 80% or 70% is an ambiguous decision, but 100% is clear. Therefore, I think each company should decide whether to set ``100%'' as ``average'' or ``excellent'' based on its suitability.

[Items and specific weight]

100Once the position of the % is determined, it becomes easier to determine its upper and lower positions. That will give you a slightly more objective view of your ability level. On the other hand, we need a system that determines what items to evaluate and how much weight to give each item. I think that the same items and weights are often set for each position and job type, but of course the items you want to evaluate will change depending on whether you have subordinates or not, whether you are an engineer or a manager, etc., and the importance of that item will also change. It is also effective to check the overall balance and fairness, and use this as an opportunity for each company to reconsider the capabilities it values. Let's say goodbye to appraisals that involve licking a pencil and making adjustments while looking at the overall balance, and instead create an appraisal system that is systematic, objective, and open to labor and management. Appraisals are the most powerful weapon for motivating employees. Let's strive to improve the abilities of our employees while giving them feedback on highly convincing evaluations.