Why is the appraisal process a perennial problem in many organisations today? Despite best efforts, it either falls into disrepair or is undermined almost as soon as it’s introduced. Has it been noted how each year the process seems to have more paperwork and more to do? Employees and their managers struggle on with it but is there any real return on their investment in time and money? Is the Leadership Team (and HR) getting the information that they need to make decisions quickly in these turbulent times?
Let’s review a typical example of how the appraisal process is viewed.
It’s appraisal time again and line managers are not looking forward to having to spend the time completing the paper work and employees generally aren’t looking forward to the dreaded appraisal meeting itself. Unresolved issues that have been under the surface most of the year are going to be dragged out and documented and the usual unbearable ‘schmoosing’ upward to management will start if it hasn’t already behind closed doors. Everyone will get given a ‘rating’ or score that they don’t understand and by some 360 process that is shrouded in secrecy. Some say that the score is used for bonus; some say a bad score will put you ‘into the departure lounge’. It’s not good that John (a colleague) and I haven’t been seeing eye to eye lately and if he’s going to be giving me some sort of a score, he’ll put the knife in. Best I do too then. I’m not sure the forms we use really apply to my role and my Manager doesn’t really understand the realities of the job I do, so we end up with these circular or inconclusive discussions that inevitably require me to sign off on some vague actions we all know won’t happen. After all of this, it gets filed away and only used again if they want to stop me suing them if I get sacked or made redundant. The output of all of this seems pointless at best and everyone would rather not do it, but we have no choice on how, when and whether it’s done.
If it’s not working, why are we doing it like this? Discuss...
Monday, 10 May 2010
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Trends
Where do you see Talent Management going in the future?
Is your company prepared and ready to deliver the right talent and skills, when and where needed?
What is your business doing about the baby boomers who will soon been retiring?
Tell us about your experiences and your plans - share your thoughts and concerns.
Is your company prepared and ready to deliver the right talent and skills, when and where needed?
What is your business doing about the baby boomers who will soon been retiring?
Tell us about your experiences and your plans - share your thoughts and concerns.
Wednesday, 12 August 2009
Assessing Values as part of the Appraisal Process
Having just seen a post from a 360 service provider suggesting that there should be a separate section on the assessment of Values in an appraisal, I felt compelled to offer our thoughts on this.
Frankly, we don't agree with the idea of a separate section that prompts a manager and their employee to talk about 'values' so explicitly - how crass! It prompts rather theoretical discussions about personal values and people find this overly invasive and fear being exposed - hardly conducive to a productive appraisal meeting and could easily derail the process completely. Magnify that by how many people 'go through this process' and it could be a potential disaster.
We do however think that values, and more explicitly how values manifest themselves in the context of the work someone performs, is an area of assessment in an appraisal or 360 review. The skill is in developing the right questions or combination of questions that tease out how these values play out in the work place and the impact they have on the individuals colleagues, and this is the approach we always take.
I suspect that a 'simple values section' is the hinting at right direction but it is the wrong implementation and a short cut to doing the job properly.
If your provider simply says, 'we'll add a values section on at the end', ask them why the values aren't entwined into the rest of the assessment or questionnaire.
After all, that's how values appear and are observed in the work place.
If your service provider 'doesn't get it' or can't or won't do this, then our genuine advice is to walk away before any damage is done.
Frankly, we don't agree with the idea of a separate section that prompts a manager and their employee to talk about 'values' so explicitly - how crass! It prompts rather theoretical discussions about personal values and people find this overly invasive and fear being exposed - hardly conducive to a productive appraisal meeting and could easily derail the process completely. Magnify that by how many people 'go through this process' and it could be a potential disaster.
We do however think that values, and more explicitly how values manifest themselves in the context of the work someone performs, is an area of assessment in an appraisal or 360 review. The skill is in developing the right questions or combination of questions that tease out how these values play out in the work place and the impact they have on the individuals colleagues, and this is the approach we always take.
I suspect that a 'simple values section' is the hinting at right direction but it is the wrong implementation and a short cut to doing the job properly.
If your provider simply says, 'we'll add a values section on at the end', ask them why the values aren't entwined into the rest of the assessment or questionnaire.
After all, that's how values appear and are observed in the work place.
If your service provider 'doesn't get it' or can't or won't do this, then our genuine advice is to walk away before any damage is done.
Tuesday, 21 July 2009
Your HR processes exposed – What do they say about your culture?
Have you considered how the HR processes in your business ‘condition’ your employees? Do you take a close look at the impact that they have on the psychological contract? Do you consider the extent to which management practices support your employer brand? Do your processes such as appraisal reflect how your business is, or was or is trying to be? Is it possible that how employees ‘feel’ about one process impacts their perception of and participation in others?
Let’s consider an example using the appraisal process.
It’s appraisal time again and line managers are not looking forward to having to spend the time completing the paper work and employees generally aren’t looking forward to the dreaded appraisal meeting itself. Unresolved issues that have been under the surface most of the year are going to be dragged out and documented and the usual unbearable ‘schmoosing’ upward to management will start if it hasn’t already behind closed doors. Everyone will get given a ‘rating’ or score that they don’t understand and by some process that is shrouded in secrecy. Some say that the score is used for bonus, some say a bad score will put you ‘into the departure lounge’. It’s not good that John (a colleague) and I haven’t been seeing eye to eye lately and if he’s going to be giving me some sort of a score, he’ll put the knife in. Best I do too then. I’m not sure the forms we use really apply to my role and my Manager doesn’t really understand the realities of the job I do, so we end up with these either circular or inconclusive discussions that inevitably require me to sign off on some vague action we all know won’t happen. After all of this, it gets filed away and only used again if they want to stop me suing them if I get sacked or made redundant. The output of all of this seems pointless at best and everyone would rather not do it, but we have no choice on how, when and whether it’s done.
Clearly, there’s something wrong with this performance appraisal and management process. We all know it as we see these problems, but often the root causes might appear elusive or beyond our ability to address. We hear this sentiment expressed regularly by the HR professionals we work with and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in literature, blogs and articles. Do you ask about the appraisal process in your Exit interviews?
Just by looking at the example we can see issues of process, purpose, secrecy, relevance and consequently buy-in. Also what does this type of feedback say about how the organisation is run and what type of culture exists here? Similarly, with this process firmly in place and established as an organisational ritual, how are other, possibly better considered, constructed and more impactful HR processes and initiatives received? To a new recruit, candidate or even someone considering their next move in the organisation, does the above suggest an open, trusting, respectful or progressive working environment?
The buck stops here, as usual
As HR professionals, we have a huge opportunity (and some would say responsibility) to ensure that the processes we introduce and advocate all contribute to the positive development of organisational culture.
Read on
Let’s consider an example using the appraisal process.
It’s appraisal time again and line managers are not looking forward to having to spend the time completing the paper work and employees generally aren’t looking forward to the dreaded appraisal meeting itself. Unresolved issues that have been under the surface most of the year are going to be dragged out and documented and the usual unbearable ‘schmoosing’ upward to management will start if it hasn’t already behind closed doors. Everyone will get given a ‘rating’ or score that they don’t understand and by some process that is shrouded in secrecy. Some say that the score is used for bonus, some say a bad score will put you ‘into the departure lounge’. It’s not good that John (a colleague) and I haven’t been seeing eye to eye lately and if he’s going to be giving me some sort of a score, he’ll put the knife in. Best I do too then. I’m not sure the forms we use really apply to my role and my Manager doesn’t really understand the realities of the job I do, so we end up with these either circular or inconclusive discussions that inevitably require me to sign off on some vague action we all know won’t happen. After all of this, it gets filed away and only used again if they want to stop me suing them if I get sacked or made redundant. The output of all of this seems pointless at best and everyone would rather not do it, but we have no choice on how, when and whether it’s done.
Clearly, there’s something wrong with this performance appraisal and management process. We all know it as we see these problems, but often the root causes might appear elusive or beyond our ability to address. We hear this sentiment expressed regularly by the HR professionals we work with and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence in literature, blogs and articles. Do you ask about the appraisal process in your Exit interviews?
Just by looking at the example we can see issues of process, purpose, secrecy, relevance and consequently buy-in. Also what does this type of feedback say about how the organisation is run and what type of culture exists here? Similarly, with this process firmly in place and established as an organisational ritual, how are other, possibly better considered, constructed and more impactful HR processes and initiatives received? To a new recruit, candidate or even someone considering their next move in the organisation, does the above suggest an open, trusting, respectful or progressive working environment?
The buck stops here, as usual
As HR professionals, we have a huge opportunity (and some would say responsibility) to ensure that the processes we introduce and advocate all contribute to the positive development of organisational culture.
Read on
Monday, 20 April 2009
Key Behavioural Indicators for Mental Toughness
Our article earlier this year included a description of mental toughness, an essential characteristic in these challenging times.
(We might argue that those who possess these abilitites are well positioned for any organisational challenge, but that would be a pet subject and not that of Head Light Communications!)
Generic metal toughness and resilience diagnostics are widely available and they measure just that particular characteristic, often solely quantitatively. Many competence frameworks also include indicators that have a relation to the concept of mental toughness, often in the context of the competency itself. This is admirable but the overall rating for the competency obscures the specific mental toughness aspect, unless the specific questions are investigated.
With the importance of mental toughness in today’s (and in all likelihood tomorrow’s) business environment, the assessment of the specific competency of Positive Organisational Behaviour, Personal Resilience (or some other such name as to be meaningful and acceptable in your own organisation) would be a pragmatic response to the turbulence of the economic environment. This can be achieved via the extension of a routine assessment such as a performance appraisal or a 360-degree review and doing so would be neither overplaying its importance nor clouding its measurement with other data. This would also provide a specific measure of this ability within the context of the role.
When designing the assessment for this competency, which would include indicators of personal resilience to be assessed against, do also include free text questions so as to provide for the gathering of evidence to reinforce this behaviour. Similarly, expressions of ‘toughness’ may not have been welcomed by those on the receiving end of them and by providing them with an opportunity to cite examples, helps them and the person being rated to explain the feedback. Finally, with these resilience indicators, expressing the indicator in a negative sense (by using a contra-indicator) is more likely to elicit a more accurate rating, as is being selective as to who (i.e. which review group) is asked to rate which indicator. (Note: not all 360 or appraisal software can do this – needless to say, Talent 180 and Talent 360 can!)
Below we offer, for your review and adaptation a selection of indicators for a Personal Resilience competency that you could use in your own assessments:
Title: Personal Resilience
Description: The demonstration of perseverance and conviction directed towards the achievement of goals despite pressure or adversity. An individual who shows resilience would adapt their behaviour according to the circumstances, proactively coping with obstacles and recovering quickly after experiencing setbacks. Engaging in strategic planning and forward thinking, anticipating outcomes and developing contingencies are also behaviours demonstrated by people who are effective in this area. Resilient individuals tend to manage pressure effectively, maintaining a positive focus, acting assertively and making sure that benefits are gained from all situations.
Positive Indicators:
• Focuses on performance outcomes despite uncertain or difficult circumstances
• Encourages others to take a positive approach to change
• Uses experience or knowledge to manage and mitigate against risks
• Takes on challenges with a ‘can-do’ attitude
• Maintains a positive attitude during times of uncertainty
• Concentrates only on things they can control or influence
• Reviews successes to understand the factors that contributed to them
• Acts quickly to capitalise on opportunities for business growth or improvements
• Remains calm during stressful or challenging situations
• Seeks to improve their own performance by both soliciting and acting on feedback
• Projects a credible, positive self-image.
Contra-indicators:
• Dwells on setbacks or things that have gone wrong
• Allows short term or minor failures to obscure longer-term goals
• Reduces efforts in the face of disappointment or rejection
• Rarely takes opportunities to build confidence by celebrating success.
Head Light Communications can assist you in the deployment of the Personal Resilience Competency and the full range of competency assessment and development programmes using our Talent® technology and supporting consultancy services.
(We might argue that those who possess these abilitites are well positioned for any organisational challenge, but that would be a pet subject and not that of Head Light Communications!)
Generic metal toughness and resilience diagnostics are widely available and they measure just that particular characteristic, often solely quantitatively. Many competence frameworks also include indicators that have a relation to the concept of mental toughness, often in the context of the competency itself. This is admirable but the overall rating for the competency obscures the specific mental toughness aspect, unless the specific questions are investigated.
With the importance of mental toughness in today’s (and in all likelihood tomorrow’s) business environment, the assessment of the specific competency of Positive Organisational Behaviour, Personal Resilience (or some other such name as to be meaningful and acceptable in your own organisation) would be a pragmatic response to the turbulence of the economic environment. This can be achieved via the extension of a routine assessment such as a performance appraisal or a 360-degree review and doing so would be neither overplaying its importance nor clouding its measurement with other data. This would also provide a specific measure of this ability within the context of the role.
When designing the assessment for this competency, which would include indicators of personal resilience to be assessed against, do also include free text questions so as to provide for the gathering of evidence to reinforce this behaviour. Similarly, expressions of ‘toughness’ may not have been welcomed by those on the receiving end of them and by providing them with an opportunity to cite examples, helps them and the person being rated to explain the feedback. Finally, with these resilience indicators, expressing the indicator in a negative sense (by using a contra-indicator) is more likely to elicit a more accurate rating, as is being selective as to who (i.e. which review group) is asked to rate which indicator. (Note: not all 360 or appraisal software can do this – needless to say, Talent 180 and Talent 360 can!)
Below we offer, for your review and adaptation a selection of indicators for a Personal Resilience competency that you could use in your own assessments:
Title: Personal Resilience
Description: The demonstration of perseverance and conviction directed towards the achievement of goals despite pressure or adversity. An individual who shows resilience would adapt their behaviour according to the circumstances, proactively coping with obstacles and recovering quickly after experiencing setbacks. Engaging in strategic planning and forward thinking, anticipating outcomes and developing contingencies are also behaviours demonstrated by people who are effective in this area. Resilient individuals tend to manage pressure effectively, maintaining a positive focus, acting assertively and making sure that benefits are gained from all situations.
Positive Indicators:
• Focuses on performance outcomes despite uncertain or difficult circumstances
• Encourages others to take a positive approach to change
• Uses experience or knowledge to manage and mitigate against risks
• Takes on challenges with a ‘can-do’ attitude
• Maintains a positive attitude during times of uncertainty
• Concentrates only on things they can control or influence
• Reviews successes to understand the factors that contributed to them
• Acts quickly to capitalise on opportunities for business growth or improvements
• Remains calm during stressful or challenging situations
• Seeks to improve their own performance by both soliciting and acting on feedback
• Projects a credible, positive self-image.
Contra-indicators:
• Dwells on setbacks or things that have gone wrong
• Allows short term or minor failures to obscure longer-term goals
• Reduces efforts in the face of disappointment or rejection
• Rarely takes opportunities to build confidence by celebrating success.
Head Light Communications can assist you in the deployment of the Personal Resilience Competency and the full range of competency assessment and development programmes using our Talent® technology and supporting consultancy services.
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Promoting a feedback-friendly culture
We have refined this handy 3-point checklist for developing the culture in your organisation to support the giving and receiving of feedback. Not easy we know, but implemented gradually over time with support from the top and you could make some inroads into this difficult problem. You could of course also ask us to help! 1. Improve and ensure the quality of feedback 2. Emphasise the importance of feedback in the organisation
3. Provide support for using feedback
- Provide skilled facilitators to help recipients interpret formal (i.e. 360) feedback and set development plans and goals
- Train and reward supervisors for coaching
- Encourage feedback recipients to discuss their feedback with colleagues to help clarify it and to reach shared agreement concerning behaviour expectations and changes
provide feedback recipients with the freedom to act on the feedback to give them a sense of control - Provide formal and inofrmal opportunities to learn
Do ask us how we include many of the above items within our 360 feedback programmes as standard to ensure a successful 360 review project.
Tuesday, 4 November 2008
Someone please explain this madness to me!
A sample 360 report has come across my desk recently. It's not one generated by our Talent360 software and its source shall remain anonymous.
What's got me 'putting pen to paper' is this idea that in addition to asking raters in a 360 review to rate someone's behaviour against a particular indicator, it also asks them to rate how important it is to the role. So let's get this straight, a direct report rates their manager on a number of behaviours, such as communication style, team working, support etc, OK so far, and then gets to offer their opinion on how important it is to their manager's role? I'm all for getting feedback on what makes a good leader or manager but its not done in the context of a 360 on an individual that then appears in their feedback report.
Firstly, what qualifies the direct report to determine and trade-off which of these indicators are more important to performance in the other person's role? Secondly, the views expressed are not necessarily going to create a consistent picture of what is important - my direct reports might have a different view than yours when it comes to importance of a behaviour in a role. So where does that leave us?
Similarly, if a behavioural indicator is rated as important by one group of raters (such as peers) but not by the manager group, where does that leave the poor individual with these conflicting messages in their feedback report.
We think this is completely bonkers and a great example of what could be done not what should be done.
If an indicator is considered to be important to high performance in a role, then this should be validated by those who hire, promote or performance manage thse folks, not the poachers turned gamekeepers! (If input from staff is required to find out their views, then management culture and employee engagement surveys are the way to go.)
With Talent360, an indicator can be marked as 'key' and therefore the scores (whatever they might be) should be taken in the context of an important characteristic and acted on accordingly.
I'd be delighted to hear a rational case to support the 'rater determines how important' argument, but not in jest please as I'll end up tearing out what little hair I have left!
What's got me 'putting pen to paper' is this idea that in addition to asking raters in a 360 review to rate someone's behaviour against a particular indicator, it also asks them to rate how important it is to the role. So let's get this straight, a direct report rates their manager on a number of behaviours, such as communication style, team working, support etc, OK so far, and then gets to offer their opinion on how important it is to their manager's role? I'm all for getting feedback on what makes a good leader or manager but its not done in the context of a 360 on an individual that then appears in their feedback report.
Firstly, what qualifies the direct report to determine and trade-off which of these indicators are more important to performance in the other person's role? Secondly, the views expressed are not necessarily going to create a consistent picture of what is important - my direct reports might have a different view than yours when it comes to importance of a behaviour in a role. So where does that leave us?
Similarly, if a behavioural indicator is rated as important by one group of raters (such as peers) but not by the manager group, where does that leave the poor individual with these conflicting messages in their feedback report.
We think this is completely bonkers and a great example of what could be done not what should be done.
If an indicator is considered to be important to high performance in a role, then this should be validated by those who hire, promote or performance manage thse folks, not the poachers turned gamekeepers! (If input from staff is required to find out their views, then management culture and employee engagement surveys are the way to go.)
With Talent360, an indicator can be marked as 'key' and therefore the scores (whatever they might be) should be taken in the context of an important characteristic and acted on accordingly.
I'd be delighted to hear a rational case to support the 'rater determines how important' argument, but not in jest please as I'll end up tearing out what little hair I have left!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)