360-degree Feedback and Forced Ranking January 8, 2007
Posted by Admin in Forced Ranking, Performance Appraisal, Performance Improvement, Performance Management.add a comment
Here’s a way to improve performance appraisal. And a way not to.
First, we need to forget about 360-degree feedback, at least for performance-appraisal purposes. Certainly, 360-degree feedback may have a place—a minor place—in helping people get a better understanding of their development needs. But it has no place in conventional performance appraisal. To allow anonymous employee assessments into part of the formal evaluation tool does more than just encourage biased and self-serving responses—it poisons the entire well in terms of the original objective. It is particularly inappropriate to tie pay, promotions, development opportunities, and terminations—the things that a strong appraisal system controls—to anonymously provided assessments. The issue is not whether underlings and co-workers can provide relevant information. They can. The issue is whether they should be allowed to do so in a context where they cannot be held accountable.
What we need to do is add some element of forced ranking to our performance-management processes. Forced ranking requires senior managers to look over the organizational talent pool and, based on their performance and potential, identify the organization’s top talent (the A players), the solid-performing middle (the B players), and those bringing up the rear (the C players). Forced ranking can drive the truth into performance management, since not only does it force managers to identify the organization’s most and least talented members (and in the process provide the organization with useful data on managers’ ability to spot and champion talent), it offers independent verification of performance-appraisal data, something everyone agrees is important.
Conventional performance appraisal involves an absolute comparison — how well did the individual perform against the goals and key job responsibilities and competencies that were agreed at the start of the year? Forced ranking requires a relative comparison—how well did this individual perform compared with how well other people in similar jobs performed? Both questions are important to ask to get a complete view of a person’s performance.
Sure, there are challenges involved in implementing a forced-ranking system. Some employees and some managers, particularly those with low standards, don’t like it. And it’s inevitable that some mistakes will arise—you’re bound to miss a few late bloomers and overrate a few glib duds.
But combining a forced-ranking system with a conventional performance-appraisal system, with senior managers holding their juniors accountable for excellence in performance management (just as they hold them accountable for excellence in all the other parts of their jobs), will produce an organizational climate in which people know what’s expected of them, are held to high standards, and know exactly how well they’re doing. Sounds like a great place to work!
Dick Grote is one of America’s most successful and best-known authors, consultants, and business keynote speakers on performance management. He is the Chairman and CEO of Grote Consulting Corporation.
Bookmark This Page
Digg It!tags: Dick Grote, Performance Appraisal System, Performance Reviews, 360 reviews
Overcoming Defensiveness in Employee Performance Evaluation Discussions April 12, 2006
Posted by Admin in Performance Appraisal, Performance Improvement, Performance Management, Talent Management.add a comment
There sits Sally on the other side of the desk during her performance evaluation. She’s scowling. Her arms are folded tightly across her chest. Her lower lip is turned out in a way that communicates both rejection and contempt. She’s flipped the performance evaluation she just read upside down on your desk as though it were some loathsome bug. She slowly shakes her head back and forth in a model of negativity. Looking you straight in the eye, she says, “Do you call this a performance evaluation?”
George is exactly the opposite. His employee performance evaluation, like the one you wrote about Sally, also told the truth about the fact that the quality of his work in the past twelve months wasn’t all that you expected and that immediate improvement is required. But George isn’t arguing; he isn’t negative in the slightest. In fact, he’s bafflingly positive about the negative review. He says that he agrees with everything you’ve said and tells you that you don’t have to give him any details or examples. You’re right, he says. He understands. He’s so contrite and remorseful, you almost feel apologetic about having written such a negative — but honest — evaluation. He promises to turn over a new leaf immediately and asks if there’s anything else you need as he gets up and starts walking out the door. (more…)
Get Your Performance Appraisal Discussions Off to a Good Start (Part 2) April 12, 2006
Posted by Admin in Performance Appraisal, Performance Improvement, Performance Management, Talent Management.add a comment
In a previous article I shared a couple of tips that will reduce the feelings of discomfort that often come when a performance appraisal is discussed — gather your materials in advance, make a list of the key points you need to cover, and pick an appropriate place for the discussion. Here are four more suggestions that will make the performance appraisal discussion more relaxed.Choose a Convenient Time
When is the best time to hold a performance appraisal discussion? There isn’t any one particular time that is ideal — mornings or afternoons, early or late in the week, it doesn’t matter.
What does matter is having enough time. Wise managers set a specific time for a performance review — perhaps 60 minutes — and announce at the beginning of the meeting just how long they have budgeted for the discussion. But they also make sure that the next activity scheduled for after the appraisal discussion is one that is either a low-priority (so that it can be re-scheduled) or highly flexible (like working on a long-range plan). It may turn out that more time is needed to discuss some sensitive items that arise during the discussion. It may also be that the performance appraisal discussion turns into a highly creative brain-storming session that needs to continue beyond the one-hour schedule. Make sure there’s enough time for unexpected events to play out. (more…)
Get Your Performance Appraisal Discussions Off to a Good Start (Part 1) March 24, 2006
Posted by Admin in Performance Appraisal, Performance Improvement, Performance Management.add a comment
Too often, participants in performance appraisal meetings seem awkward and uncomfortable. To some extent, that’s unavoidable — it’s always a bit awkward for one person to deliver a formal assessment of the quality of work performed by another.
But a lot of the awkwardness in performance appraisal meetings can be eliminated by following some simple suggestions. Here are a couple of tips that will help put both players at ease. (In Part 2 of this article, I’ll provide some additional suggestions.)
Gather Your Appraisal Information and Materials in Advance
The most important item you need to have is a copy of the individual’s performance appraisal. That’s obvious. But that’s not all.
At the beginning of the year you and the individual probably had a performance planning meeting. Ideally, the individual would have taken notes on a blank copy of the appraisal form and made a copy for you. That document should have all of the key items that you discussed during the meeting. Be sure you have a copy of that planning document in case a question about the original goals comes up.
You’ll also need information about the individual’s performance, particularly if there are some areas where the performance varied significantly from your expectations. Whether the variation was in a positive or negative direction, you’ll need to be able to demonstrate why you assigned the rating that you did. If the assessment is that the individual’s performance was less than you desired, then it’s critically important that you have all of the evidence you used in order to come to that “Unsatisfactory” or “Need Improvement” performance appraisal rating. There’s a magic phrase to use here. That phrase is, “For example . . .” Make sure you’ve got plenty of examples that support a less-than-satisfactory evaluation.
You may want to have a copy of the individual’s development plan. You may want to have copies of weekly reports that the individual submitted that described progress against the goals that were set. You can’t make a mistake by having too much support material. It will prevent the embarrassment of being unable to find anything of substance to justify the rating you gave. (more…)
Motivation is Key to Increasing Employee Performance February 3, 2006
Posted by Admin in Performance Improvement, Performance Management.add a comment
What’s an organization to do when all of its honest and genuine efforts to motivate Sally and Sam to come to work on time, work safely, deliver efficient services, and act as if they were happy to be a part of the team, fail? There is no shortage of pop-psych books and motivational speakers who’ll tell you a thousand-and-one ways to light a fire in Sam’s belly. But what do you do when the fire goes out and none of those thousand-and-one ways seem to work any more? What do we really know about motivation?
Does anything work?
Given the constant barrage of pep talks and posters, slogans and free advice on the topic of motivation, there should certainly be at least a couple of core principles that predictably work every time. Aren’t there? Or are we stuck with the notion that everybody’s an individual, and what’s a turn-on for Sally is likely to be a turn-off for Sam? (more…)
