Fred Nichols has oft suggested that we scrap performance appraisals, while I contend that we need to teach people to use it intelligently. Here’s a bit from the ongoing conversation.
I think this is a great example showing that we have a tendency to look at performance appraisal issues through our own direct experience, which is bound to be somewhat limited. If we’ve had bad experiences we tend to believe that ya might as well get rid of the whole thing. And most people have had some bad experiences.
People who have seen or participated in processes that work see it differently, which is one reason those of us that get around a lot and work in the area tend to be at least a bit more optimistic that it CAN be done properly (folks such as myself, Jack Zigon, Robert Hughes).
The other component is that we tend to believe that what we think is performance management or appraisal is what everyone thinks it is. So if our experience is that it involves ratings (usually bogus), we identify rating as appraisal.
When we talk about this process and whether we should “scrap it”, we need to realize that we have different ideas of this “thing”. Scrap ratings? You bet. Scrap rankings? You bet. Scrap bogus process done just to get them done? You bet.
But if we are talking about a properly conceived and executed performance MANAGEMENT system, with an emphasis on planning and communication and very little emphasis on the appraisal forms, then let’s do it.
People and companies ARE doing it right (although I believe they are still in the minority). Go to a few conferences that deal with this and you will here some glowing success stories, some even with data
(ok., truth be told I don’t believe most of those, but I DO believe some).
Companies have good reason to want “something” to fulfil some specific functions…whether legal protection, employee development, continuous improvement, and on and on. It’s easy for onlookers to
suggest blowing off the whole thing.
Perhaps we should do the same with training…just get rid of it. After all, a lot of training dollars are wasted do to improper implementation and conception of the training. But we don’t say that, because we know it CAN be done right.
Which I suspect is why people like Jack Zigon (who I don’t agree with on all his points), and myself do what we do.
Most of the “Performance Management” systems I’ve been the victim of aren’t bad, they’re just designed that way.
Imagine if my home air-conditioning here in “Famously Hot” South Carolina worked like that. 9AM — Temp OK 10AM — Getting Warmer 11AM — Pretty Hot 2PM — Really Hot 4PM — Burnin’ Up In Here! 6PM — Owner Dies Of Heatstroke
8PM Performance Appraisal of Air Conditioning: Didn’t work well. Should have turned on at 10AM.
You need measurable objectives, continuous feedback, and transparent comparison with peers for an effective system. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this in any company I’ve worked in. But I’m still hoping.
What I’d like to see — and what I haven’t seen or at least recognized when it’s in front of me, in my limited experience — is a performance management system that starts with the assessment of the performance of the organization and then works its way through the business units, sub-units, etc. to the individuals working in it.
Have you seen that sort of thing Robert? Is that how a good performance management system even works?
The approach that I talk about in my book is a bit of a watered down version of what you describe, and it’s based on some best practices I’ve observed. The overall organizational picture is brought in to the process in the planning stage, where the strategic plan integrates with goals setting for units and individuals in a cascading process.
If you are talking about assessing goal attainment from org –> unit –> employee, I’m not sure what that would look like. Can you venture some details?
I’m theorizing here about something I’ve never actually seen, and I could easily be missing something.
So, we’ve set the plan and the goals, we execute, and then we assess, yes? How did the organization perform vs its goals? What factors contributed to that performance? We have systems and business units that make up the organization; how did they contribute to the performance? And so on down to the individual level.
Does that help? Does it make sense? Or did I just reiterate my earlier comment at more or less the same level?