People love to compare. With the rise of social media and fast content, more people are falling into the trap of comparing themselves with others. His video is better than mine. She has more followers. They are doing better than me. All these phrases and similar ones are on the rise with the growth of the new culture of comparison. In companies, this is happening at different levels. Often, leadership teams call this thing grading.
Grading basically means that people in organizations are divided into groups based on factors like work, impact on the business, complexity of decisions, team responsibilities, etc.
You will say – nothing wrong with that – why should this grading borrow me? But unfortunately, grading also has the dark side of comparison. To get equal benefits for people in similar grades, the company’s leadership team defines different elements of the grade that are more statutory than adding value. For example, you may have people in two different grades who have other phones, cars, benefits, and perks and even use the vehicles they use. These elements, thought to be the differentiator for people and stimulating personal perception for significance, often create more discrepancies than good. With them in the game, what should be a non-formal and equal environment quickly turns into a comparison-driven and ego-boosting place and relationships.
Driven by the level of personal understanding of work contribution, people often become unsatisfied with what they get because of their grades and start creating opposition and disturbance in the environment. This changes the environment from trust and respect-driven to fear, anxiety, rumors, and growing toxicity-driven.
Unveiling the toxic nature of a grading-based culture
It creates unnecessary mind levels
People love power. They want to feel different and winners. It is in their DNA. So, being on a certain level, having something that is limited to only your level, feels as if you are a winner. And it is how the world of the grading culture works – dividing people into groups and creating a list of(sometimes some of them unique) elements for the particular group. From the positive perspective, this may sound like creating equity between equal people, but for the others, outside of the group or the grade, it may mean a way to show them how insignificant they are.
It silos people into a specific group
I have this package because I am on a certain level, which is a thought that often creates discrepancies in teams. It is not uncommon, but it is still tolerated within so many organizations – even some who are positioning themselves as open cultures with no barriers. People like to stick to the group norms because they make them look different and, at the same time, part of a specific group. And here is where the silos happen, closing the group and making it opposite to others who have different benefits – below and above the grade of the current group.
It creates false self-perception
Still, many companies love to divide grades by operational level. That is how a grading system gets blue collars, operational staff, and strategic-level roles. Of course, the companies selling this methodology use the level of complexity of the work and how impactful the decisions are for the whole business. And somehow, it is a predefined assumption that those in “strategic roles” have the highest level of responsibility for the results. At the same time, people below in the grading hierarchy are more transactional and more following than creating their own unique value proposition. Those holding the “strategic roles” can’t do much if those below are not committed to following them and ensuring the execution of the well-thought strategies and missionary-connected items in the agenda.
It creates opposition
Now, look at the blue-collar and the brand manager in the marketing department. In many situations, they don’t have a relationship because, based on their grades, they have different and opposite understandings and attitudes. The brand manager may think they are better than doing the blue-collar work. In contrast, the blue-collar worker may experience frustration caused by the manager’s behavior showing that they are superior to them. This “quiet war” for those who are more critical is fueled by the perks that the grade of brand manager offers and the limitations that the blue-collar see in their grading level, knowing what the other person receives. The” war” for who is superior slowly turns into unconscious hate and negativity. This is what intoxicates the culture and weakens it.
It weakens the future
While it is good to have some differences, the extremes from one level offered to another in a grading-based structure for an organization create tension and stress that removes the focus from the important and puts it toward the opposition and in favor of the internal conflicts. All this creates discrepancies in the first place, allocates valuable and, in many cases, limited resources in the wrong direction, and lowers security in the organization’s future success. Leadership teams often lose sight of what is essential by allocating time and effort to deal with the discrepancies created by differences introduced in the organization. They can move the organization toward its goal for success.
But can this be fixed?
and
Do we need grading?
Most traditional companies admire grading because it gives them the formal structure that the leadership teams are often afraid to communicate. Grading can also create some level of transparency and can be used to explain some differences between levels. But many organizations using grading still miss that to use this tool appropriately, they must let the old way of thinking through dominance away and introduce a different approach based on needs and comfort. A flexible grading system can include many positives if structured correctly for each and every group of employees covered by this system. There are many positives of the flexible and covering needs grading:
It creates transparency
The first and foremost thing to mention here is what makes people become distant and hostile – a lack of transparency or clarity that creates inconvenience. The more openly the grading is communicated and the more time companies invest in explaining why it is used, the higher the level of trust is toward it. This transparency comes in the form of shared information about why something is decided on a certain level in the organization
It explains the differences
Here is where some people may say that they don’t accept the grading and its explanation. Remember that being clear and communicating transparently doesn’t have to lead to acceptance. However, a structured grading system is an essential set of information to show employees how different sets of perks and elements included across the grading structure are connected to create comfort and to what needs every perk responds to. Explaining the differences in the grading system’s different layers through the roles’ needs and the impact on the business and the results helps position this system into the, if not optimistic, at least neutral space of the communication continuum.
Connects differences to place and specifics of each role
Now, imagine that you hear your supervisor has a company phone while you must use yours. At first, you may experience some frustration and then anger, followed by the feeling that the company does not appreciate you as a person and professional. And you may be far on the wrong side with that assumption. No, look how this looks from a company perspective. Why would you need a company phone if your primary communication role is via e-mail and chat client? In most cases, company phones are provided to allow flexibility in the process of communication and ensure availability. A supervisor who has the phone may have installed an e-mail client and is added to a group of people who have to be available in different time slots than your regular working hours. Having the company phone means you are available; you use it to communicate outside and inside the organization and deliver results based on your communication. Are you ready to be available every time, be there when you receive an urgent message from your GM, or react promptly to a crisis, if it arises, without taking the element of the working hours pattern into consideration? If not, why would you need a company phone – for an empty prestige or to take another device with you everywhere you go? Now, look at how a misunderstanding may create false discrepancies, caused mainly by the limited amount of information the person has about the elements included in the grades. Communicating them all in a direct and open way can clearly point to what creates security, acceptance, and comfort.
Sets the ground for logical and meaningful discussion
Whether the person likes it or not, grading systems set standards for behavior, expectations, and equity. We may not like the equity the grades create, but it is still there. Looking at the grading as an exercise to put the most common things in one basket for similar roles makes it a tool for positive impact. Together with that, changing grading may have a positive impact outside the person to the larger group of people who are added to a specific grade. It still creates equity but also elevates the satisfactory levels of compensation for all people in the group, those who are openly talking about it and those who don’t feel comfortable talking openly but still have their issue with the standard set in a specific way.
Creates a level of predictability
Imagine preparing a budget in a highly sensitive expense environment and company. And you go to the people packages part and don’t know what to put as numbers. Is it going to be too much or too low if you put a specific number out of nowhere? With a grading system in place, the planning of adequate funds is much easier. The person responsible for building the agenda and calculating the cost of having equally awarded employees has less stress and calculates more accurate amounts of funds needed, knowing what they should have to create equity across a system of grading levels in the company. It also makes the leadership board feel more comfortable deciding what to support and cut because they can see the logic and the need after the numbers.
IN CONCLUSION:
Grading systems are needed for budgeting and personal understanding. But they do more good than harm when maintained correctly and explained constantly and understandably. The trick is to find those people who can create them for your organization in a way that makes a larger group of people feel comfortable and positive about them. Why a larger group and not everyone? Because you cannot make everyone happy, creating clear rules and systems to minimize inequity is a starting point for something better and more positive in time.
The Human place - a path from you to yourself 