When an agreement with a labor union or a company decision is made based on the minimum wage announced every year, it is common to adjust the wage by taking into account the assessment results in addition to the base increase. However, the evaluation results submitted by subordinates are biased toward average evaluations, and there are no good or bad evaluations, and it is often the case that most everyone receives the same evaluation. Let's think about why this happens and how we can provide guidance so that students can give a well-rounded evaluation.

[Is quota system effective?]

Indonesians have a strong tendency to desire "equality" rather than "fairness." In Japan, it is said that ``the stake that sticks out gets hammered down,'' but in Indonesia, even if the stake doesn't get hit, the person who stands out often feels ``uncomfortable.'' That's why everyone wants the same thing, and there is a strong tendency for there to be no big differences in evaluations.
Therefore, aiming for a well-defined evaluation, there are quite a few companies that assign a number of people to each evaluation and conduct evaluations according to the number of people. For example, in the case of a 5-level evaluation, A would be 5% of the target employees, B would be 10%, C would be 70%, D would be 10%, E would be 5%, and so on. If there are a large number of employees, this ratio seems reasonable and can be adjusted, but if the number of employees is small depending on the department, it may become impossible to give anything other than a C. In that case, we may conduct a pure evaluation and ultimately make adjustments to match this ratio company-wide. However, what do employees think when they are given such an order? Many people seem to feel uncomfortable about being forced to do this. Then, they explain to employees who have received bad evaluations that ``the company has assigned the number of employees,'' and they are unable to provide guidance that will lead to improvement of the employees. If this is the case, there is no point in conducting an evaluation, and the evaluation will only be used to calculate salary increases and bonuses, so even if it is a good guideline, it is better to avoid forcing it. In some cases, the evaluation is based on the total amount paid rather than the number of people, but this is somewhat more flexible.

[The real reason why you can't give an unusual evaluation]

It feels good to be evaluated as ``average,'' but why is it so difficult to evaluate something as being above or below average? This is because there is no concrete picture of the goal to be achieved, and evaluation is done intuitively. If the goal to be achieved is written as ``favorably'', ``smoothly'', or ``quickly'', it becomes subjective and there will be differences in evaluation. Also, if you express your ability by saying things like ``understand'' or ``know,'' the evaluation will be ambiguous because there are various levels of understanding. When evaluations become ambiguous, bosses who don't want people to complain will find it difficult to give evaluations that are not ``normal.'' The ultimate cause of unfocused evaluations is ambiguity in goal setting. Although they are often referred to as SMART goals, they are often not specifically set as M (= measurable) goals. When it comes to goal management and competency standards, it is necessary to spend time carefully examining the content expressions when setting them, and to check the achievement status with superiors and subordinates to ensure that they are on the same level of understanding. If you can do that, it will be much easier to explain whether something is insufficient or exceeds it.