Posted by Jamie Resker on Mon, Jan 23, 2012 @ 08:56 AM
A simple experiment to determine if your talent management processes are doing what they should:
Randomly select an appropriate sample size of your people- managers. Have the selected managers and all of their employees do the following Matching Questions Excercise:
The Manager: For each employee, write down the answers to the following questions: The "one-thing" he or she does really well and should continue with AND the "one-thing" he or she should be focusing on to be even more effective in the role.
The Employee: Records the one-thing he or she considers to be a top strength and should continue to be emphasized AND the "one-thing" that should be done to be even more effective in his or her role.
The Comparison
When comparing the answers between the manager and employee do they match? If so, then change nothing with your PM process; keep doing what you’re doing because it’s working. If the answers don't align then adjustments need to be made in the current performance management processes, tools and practices.
This is Alarming
What’s really scary is the research we’ve done shows that nearly 100% of managers when asked these matching questions will acknowledge that the answers they write and the answers the employee write would be mismatched. Those that do answer yes seem a bit unsure.
An Obvious Conclusion
At a minimum your people-managers and their team members should have a shared understanding of what is going well and should continue (one or two items will do) AND that “one-thing" that should be developed to increase overall performance effectiveness. Can your PM processes do that? It should.
Posted by Jamie Resker on Wed, Oct 12, 2011 @ 04:02 PM
We’re excited to have Sean Conrad, a Certified Human Capital Strategist and Senior Product Analyst at Halogen Software, provide some insight on employee motivation.
mo·ti·va·tion
noun /ˌmōtəˈvāSHən/
motivations, plural
1. The reason or reasons one has for acting or behaving in a particular way
-escape can be a strong motivation for travel
2. The general desire or willingness of someone to do something
- keep staff up to date and maintain interest and motivation
Motivation. It’s complex and sometimes just plain unpredictable, but as a manager, understanding motivation is critical to helping your employees perform at a high level. This ability is truly an art, and one that requires ongoing effort and attention from even the strongest of managers.
|
It’s important to keep in mind that what may motivate one employee simply may not do anything for another. In fact, studies have consistently shown that while pay for performance can be a motivator for some employees, it is simply not enough for others.
When it comes to employee recognition, here’s what employees really want:
-
To receive fair pay and benefits
-
To receive time and attention from supervisors
-
To feel their contribution to the company is valued
-
To be trusted to make decisions and have some control over their work
-
To have clear goals set out by management
-
To be treated with dignity and respect
-
To receive recognition, even for everyday tasks
-
To receive training / mentoring / leadership development
Many of these motivating factors don’t involve monetary reward at all. So with that said, how can you ensure you deliver on the above? Here are four performance management best practices that can help.
1. Give Regular Feedback on Performance
Even if your organization only conducts performance appraisals once a year, managers should be having ongoing, consistent conversations with employees about performance. These could be in the context of weekly update meetings, monthly check-ins and/or quarterly mini appraisals. Having ongoing conversations about performance enables you, the manager, to provide timely recognition of your employees’ achievements and to identify and address any issues or areas for improvement earlier on.
2. Provide Opportunities for Training and Development
Too often employee development discussions remain neglected until the next annual performance review. Development needs are identified based on performance ratings and "stretch" goals, then a few courses or learning activities are assigned.
Development is a continuous process, and providing employees with ongoing opportunities throughout the year can go a long way to driving employee motivation. Employee development can take many forms - from formal training opportunities to providing relevant books to read.
The key is to ensure you are regularly assessing throughout the year where employees are in terms of development activities. You may have an employee who completes all of her development activities in the first quarter, which means you’ll both need to consider further challenges and opportunities to continue her development.
Conversely, an employee may be struggling with development activities; work with this employee to reassess his training and development plan so he can continue to feel positive about his development goals.
3. Monitor Progress on Goals
Effective goal management is ongoing. It requires regular continuous dialogue between managers and employees that includes: feedback and coaching, prioritizing, and employee development and career planning.
The result is that employees have visibility into how they're contributing and the effect of their efforts so they can celebrate milestones and successes. This regular progress check also enables you to adjust and update goals as business or other priorities change.
4. Master the Art of Performance Conversations
A lot of what holds managers back in terms of effectively motivating their team is a lack of confidence or skill in facilitating productive performance conversations. This is especially true when the conversation is centered on addressing a performance issue.
To this point, Halogen Software is excited to partner with Jamie on a webinar that will help managers manage with these sometimes difficult and awkward performance conversations.
I invite you to register for our webinar, Mastering the Art of Performance Feedback, on August 17th at 1 p.m. ET to learn pragmatic modern day skills to take on these conversations in a whole new way.
You can register for this webinar here: http://www.halogensoftware.com/news-events/webinars/wp_webinar.php?p=4262
Sean Conrad is a Certified Human Capital Strategist and Senior Product Analyst at Halogen Software, one of the leading providers of talent management software. For more of his insights on talent management, read his posts on the Halogen Software blog.
|
Posted by Jamie Resker on Fri, Aug 05, 2011 @ 09:29 AM
Most of what HR professionals (this included me) have taught our leaders about giving performance feedback and addressing performance issues is flat out wrong.
We learn and use the “constructive criticism” and SBI approaches (Situation, Behavior and Impact). The SBI approach is usually awkward and overkill for most situations. Turns out that criticism, constructive or not is still criticism. 9.75 out of 10 times the person on the receiving end will react defensively, moving you further away from your goal of actually getting the individual to listen and upgrade their performance.
I dug out a horrendous training presentation I developed back in 2001. I’m completely embarrassed yet still posting the slides for the world to see. The worst of it is on slide #8; be sure to check that one out. First off, I was giving outdated useless "how-to" advice on the topic. Second, my PowerPoint skills at the time were sorely lacking (I’ve since gotten to be a PowerPoint Jedi). WARNING: do not implement this or anything that resembles it in your organization and if this is your organization’s approach to teaching managers how to manage performance it’s not too late to adopt a more modern approach to this age-old challenge.
Check out a short article The Worst Way to Give Feedback to see if you or the leaders in your organization are approaching feedback in this way. My bet is that it’s what you learned and if you’re in HR it may be what you’re teaching others. Learn a modern approach to giving performance feedback by registering for the HR.com webcast, Mastering the Art of Giving Performance Feedback, on August 17, 2011 1-2pm ET.
Posted by Jamie Resker on Tue, Jul 05, 2011 @ 02:48 PM
I think we pretty much know that most people dislike performance reviews: HR hates enforcing the process and chasing down the chronic offenders who never seem to make reviews a priority (65% + or – of your managers). Managers hate writing and delivering them. The majority of employees can’t say that they experience the performance review as a helpful developmental process. You may be aware of a movement around getting rid of the performance review all together: the 1950’s have called and they want their Performance Review Process back asap!
Then there’s this whole ball of wax around managing the generations. For example, generation X, that’s me, has grown up on performance reviews, just as sure as we all watched the Brady Bunch and Gilligan’s Island. We expect at least one a year. I’d say we’ve at least been brain washed into tolerating them.
We constantly here that generation Y needs lots of handholding, praise and can never have enough feedback. How does the “still stuck in the 1950’s Performance Appraisal Process” work for the Gen Y workforce? Now I could refer to the research of someone like Tammy Erickson, a widely respected expert on the multigenerational workforce. Research and data are great, but you want to know what’s even better? Hearing it from the source: a real live Gen Y specimen!
Enter Kyle Lagunas, HR Market Analyst at Software Advice. Knowing I have a keen interest in employee performance Kyle introduced himself and shared the article he wrote on how Gen Y REALLY feels about Performance Reviews. Really smart and a must read for all HR and talent management professionals charged with developing talent and retooling an often outdated approach to performance management. Here’s his post:
The workforce is changing. Just as a company would adjust its business model to a changing market, organizations must rise to meet the needs of the new kids on the block: Generation Y. One of the biggest questions posed to HR professionals has been, “Can Gen Y handle performance reviews without the sugar coating?” The answer is yes.
Some analysts have dubbed us “trophy kids,” and believe we grew up being rewarded for our endeavors regardless of scale or success. Many believe we cannot handle life in a less-than-adoring work environment. Contrary to popular belief, though, we don’t need our hands held or our egos stroked daily. It’s important for leaders and managers to understand things from our perspective, so they can get the most out of our performance reviews.
Here’s how we see it:
1. We don’t get it. You say performance reviews are important, but they are executed so poorly. Dust off your thinking caps, modernize your reviews, and capitalize on your most valuable asset (your people).
2. Lose the sugar coating. You weren’t the only ones suffering through the recession. Our idealism, though strong, has been tempered. If our performance can improve, give us strong, actionable feedback with measurable goals.
3. Connect with us. Regular feedback doesn’t have to be complicated. If you don’t have an instant messaging client in your office, get one. They’re a great tool for maintaining informal lines of communication (which we love).
4. Positive reinforcement isn’t a bad thing. Whoever demonized trophies should think again. Rewarding good performance can be as simple as an “Atta boy!” or “You go girl!” sent via email--and they go a long way in giving Gen Yers a sense of accomplishment.
To read this article in its entirety, check it out the Software Advice’s blog: A Generation Y Perspective on Performance Reviews
Posted by Jamie Resker on Thu, Jun 16, 2011 @ 04:42 PM
The Boston Business Journal honored the 75 best places to work in Boston. The event named the top companies across three categories – large, medium and small businesses. The midsize business winner for the second year in a row was HubSpot which also happens to be the vendor we use for our web platform. Check out the video above, featuring some of the Hubspot staff (aka as HubSpotters) and you can easily see how much fun employees have working at this unique 200 person company. Hmmmm, how do we get employees to voluntarily sing and rap about their employer's products and services?
The Best Places to Work honorees and ranking are the result of an employee survey conducted by the Boston Business Journal and Quantum Workplace, which analyzed submissions from 320 Boston-area companies whose employees filled out an anonymous survey.
Of interest, one of the questions on the survey asked respondents to rank order 10 employee recognition options. Here were the top three choices:
- Spontaneous cash bonuses
- Opportunities for new learning and development
- Ability to work autonomously
These three beat out annual pay increases. Ping pong tables and beer in the fridge might be nice to haves but if you’re going to engage and recognize your high potentials and top performers you’ll want to have formal or informal initiatives around employee training and development. Too small to have formal initiatives or your HR function hasn’t put something in place? If you’re a leader this shouldn’t present a problem. Even just asking people on your team on a regular basis, “what are you interested in working on?” is a start. One organization asks this question twice yearly.
Try to weave people’s interests into their responsibilities. Be creative. One manager tells the story of an Accounts Payable staffer that had a keen interest in public speaking. The leader allowed this staff member to make monthly presentations to the finance department.
Posted by Jamie Resker on Mon, Jun 06, 2011 @ 04:54 PM
Written by Julie Lynch of Uncommon Consulting
YES! YES! YES! For Goodness Sake, YES! This article made me perfectly giddy. As a long time manager and HR exec I have eschewed the performance review. Eschewed I say!
The traditional performance review process more often than not results in:
Wasted HR Time: HR should be spending it’s time recruiting excellent talent and building competitive culture. Not chasing after process.
Misguided Management Activity: For managers who know what they’re doing and consistently provide specific, timely, relevant feedback on performance throughout the year in a manner that is motivating and engaging for their staff, the fill-in-the-blank performance review is an insult to both manager and employee. For the managers who give no feedback during the year and who resist and resent even the annual task, the resulting review is an insult to the employee and the company.
Increased Liability: The performance reviews completed by managers who just want to get the darn thing done and don’t have either the competence or the guts to provide constructive guidance are dangerous. Everyone gets an A. And then a month later they want to fire someone and HR pulls the “documentation” and sees the person got all A’s. (Pan to beleaguered HR professional sighing with head in hands.)
Employee Damage: “Aren’t we supposed to have reviews at least once a year? I haven’t had one since I got here.” “My manager tried to give me a meets expectations but I told her I never get a meets expectations.” “These performance review forms are completely irrelevant to my job. I want to know how I’m actually doing.” “I got exceeds expectations. Shouldn’t I get a raise?” These are but a few examples representing the dashed expectations of employees unfortunate enough to be on the ugly end of a well intentioned but ineffective performance process.
Instead of devoting time and effort to a static, marginally relevant, impersonal process, my vote is to train managers to manage and hold them accountable. Oh, but wait, that would mean our leaders would have to have regular conversations to let people know how they are doing.
And don’t even get me started on merit increases….
What do you think? What makes a good performance management process?
Posted by Jamie Resker on Mon, Mar 07, 2011 @ 10:03 AM
And do Something About it...
As the primary mechanism for delivering feedback, the annual performance review leaves much to be desired. I don’t know that reviews will ever be dumped, but I do know that managers, employees, leadership and HR don’t put a lot of stock in them.
It’s silly to wait for a once a year report card and then sometimes be surprised at the information or disappointed in the rating and pay raise. If we’re relying on this process to improve performance and communicate important performance action items, we’ll be waiting another hundred years. For all the fancy, over-engineered automated review tools glutting up the market, there’s still no replacement for getting the real information first hand and in small doses all throughout the year.
This is scary. For years we’ve been polling people on this question:
When do most managers usually intervene when there’s a performance issue:
- Early on with informal feedback
- When a known pattern has developed
- After it’s been going on so long they are just ready to fire the person (and seek help from HR to get the exit plan in place)
Data collected from a webcast we ran for the Human Capital Institute showed that just 6% of managers give early-on informal feedback while 50% wait for a known pattern to develop (months and years) and 43% wait until they are ready to fire the person. Ouch!
This should be a wake-up call for employees everywhere! Because it’s uncomfortable to initiate the conversations and most people (and that includes managers) are afraid of confrontation and defensive reactions we’re apt to be left in the dark about how we’re really doing. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be in the 50% or 43% category because then it's too late.
Unfortunately we can’t always count on having a manager who has good communication skills and who we trust. My best advice to employees everywhere is to continually ask two questions of our trusted advisor networks. First, identify your network. Who says it's only the boss who has valuable information? What about internal customers, colleagues, vendors and clients?
Ask:
1. Tell me what I'm doing well and that I should continue with (this way you can become aware of and leverage your strengths.
2. Tell me one thing I could do that would help me be more effective.
Notice how I asked about what I could do as opposed to what my weakness or deficiency is. Why on earth would I want to know that and why would someone want to tell me (honestly)? I also asked about the one thing. Performance reviews are about the 15 things; TMI!
When I'm asking for feedback I'm mentally ready to hear the information, I can ask who I want, when and how often too. I'd rather not wait around for the annual review to find out what I need to be recalibrating in terms of my performance. Frankly, I'm all set with that.
Let’s stop whining about the system, which we all know is flawed, and take individual responsibility for actively shopping for our own feedback. After all, I’m the one responsible for my own career and development.
What do you think? Should we wait for others to serve up feedback or should we take the lead?
Posted by Jamie Resker on Thu, Jan 27, 2011 @ 06:29 PM
I expect that most of you reading this will have had a similar experience:
Act 1:
I was driving in typical bumper to bumper Boston traffic the other day when I acted completely against the local custom and decided to be nice and let another driver pull in front of me. Just as their car got fully into the lane I noticed the hand of the driver wave a couple times in front of their rear view mirror. At that moment I felt a smile come onto my face and I thought to myself, that was really nice of them, and especially, that was really nice of me. It left me feeling good about the whole interaction.
Act 2:
Same setting, 45 minutes later, after traveling a half mile down the road. I feel the impatience growing among my fellow commuters as cars switched lanes to find the fastest one. Out of the corner of my eye I saw a small red car, to my right, driving like they wanted to ease out in front of me. Instead of blocking them out, as is the custom amongst us Boston drivers, I decided to let the car ease in front of me. After the driver settled into the lane I eagerly awaited that same friendly wave in front of the rear view mirror. I waited and waited and to my great disappointment the acknowledgement NEVER came. This left me feeling resentful, like I was a sucker for letting them in front of me, and made me vow to never ever let this happen again.
OK, I may be exaggerating just a bit. After the pain dulled from my kindness not having been recognized by the driver of the small red car it got me thinking about how powerful a simple gesture like, “Thank you” can be.
I often wonder if there is a person anywhere who has been overwhelmed by their boss, colleauges, friends or family with too many, “Thank you” gestures, too much positive recognition or too much positive feedback? More than likely a global manhunt would need to ensue to find this person.
Unfortunately, it’s more common to get feedback when there is a problem. But what if things were different for a moment. What if we received recognition about what’s going right, going well or what’s good about something or someone at work? What if we looked around to find good effort to acknowledge? What if each and every day we looked around in and out of the workplace to find the people who help make things happen, who do great work and who give extra effort so we can say, “Thank you”. Do you think they would be encouraged, inspired or cheered on? Do you think a thank you would help them want to do more of the same great work?
Coauthored with Michael Shipman http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelshipman
Posted by Jamie Resker on Mon, Oct 18, 2010 @ 09:06 PM
One of the excuses we commonly hear as a reason for not actively engaging in dialogue with employees regarding their performance is “We’re really nice at XYZ organization” or “We're non-confrontational". Translation, “We have people who are underperforming, but we’d rather not have those conversations.” Or, “It’s just easier to let the underperformance continue as is; I’ll just focus on my A and B level players.” And finally, “What would we say and how would the person on the receiving end react? We’d rather not go there.”
There are many reasons for not having performance conversations. Here are just a few:
- He’s only got another two years before retirement.
- She can’t change.
- That’s the way he’s always been.
- What if I make things worse?
- It’s a personality issue and it’s not my job to deal with that type of thing.
- We can’t afford to lose her.
The most contradictory of all the reasons to not provide feedback:
- “We’re a gentle, nice type of place to work and we avoid conflict.”
Why is it contradictory?
In our research, managers admit to waiting for a performance problem to get so bad that they allow it to reach a level where the first step is disciplinary action or getting the ball rolling on moving the person out of the organization. So, if the organization was really the nice place it claimed to be, wouldn’t it make more sense to provide early-on and actionable feedback that would help the employee get back on track?
One of the questions we ask at every event or workshop is:
When do people first get information on an area of underperformance?
- Early on when the issue has just emerged.
- When a persistent pattern has developed.
- When the manager is so frustrated they are just ready to fire the employee.
Not surprisingly managers and Human Resources professionals report that it’s when a persistent pattern has developed (meaning it’s time for disciplinary action such as a warning of performance improvement plan) or when the manager is ready to fire the employee. In other words, we’d rather just let the person continue on down the wrong path and then discipline them or get the wheels in motion to fire them.
A Human Resources Director of a Boston based technology company had a manager ask for assistance to move an underperforming employee out of the company. When the HR Director asked the manager when he had a conversation with the employee about the issue he admitted he hadn’t brought it up with the employee. She then point blank asked, “So you’d rather fire this person than try to have a conversation about changing the behavior?” Sadly the manager answered, “Yes, I’d rather just get rid of the person.” Unfortunately this is a common story in many organizations.
Good and kind organizations promote these conversations early on before the issue has reached the point of no return. From the employee’s perspective it’s particularly unfair when the issue is in their blind spot; they have no idea their performance is problematic. Not because the leader who could and should be having a conversation is unaware of the issue. They are aware of the problem but because most people are unsure of how to go about such discussions, they avoid having them in the first place. On the surface this appears to be the “we’re a nice organization who doesn’t engage in conflict.”
From the employee’s vantage point withholding key performance information is anything but nice. How many times have people been written off or worked around due to a performance inhibitor? “You know how Jennifer can be, let’s not have her on the team this time around.” Only for Jennifer to realize she has been left out of various activities and opportunities which can lead to her asking why she wasn’t asked to participate. When employees are left out of important meetings, bypassed for promotional opportunities or interesting work, left behind while team members go to lunch together, or whispered about, they pick up on the undertones. This leads to further disengagement and only exacerbates the problem.
First Step: Warning or Performance Improvement Plans?
Worse still is when the employee hears about the issue for the first time and is put on a warning or performance plan. Even worse than that is when the person is “laid off” or suddenly fired. What could be more unfair, particularly when there is evidence that most people can get back on track when they receive early-on actionable feedback. When managers say the employee is unable to perform we always ask, has the person been given the opportunity to demonstrate his or her true capabilities? If the answer is yes, they have been given feedback and the support to realign their performance then the obvious answer is to get started down the disciplinary path or moving the person out of the organization. When the answer is no, I haven’t really had that kind of conversation, then the conversation about how to be more effective should take place.
Being a kind organization means giving people the opportunity to improve before writing them off, even when it might mean initiating an uncomfortable conversation. The goal should always be to “help the employee out” before “helping them out of the organization.”
Posted by Jamie Resker on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 @ 10:40 AM
First let me say I am no fan of performance review ratings or once or twice a year high stake do-or-die performance review meetings. No one wants to be reviewed, appraised, or evaluated to begin with. Now add to this mix the label we affix to the individual’s performance. If we could all get 100% or the highest rating there wouldn't be an issue; but in reality only about 6 - 10% of our employee populations represent "A" players. The other performers represent the worst and somewhere in the midde of the bell curve performers.
Does This Scare You Too?
In our work we’ve asked thousands of employees having just participated in their organization’s performance review process if they can name two things. Specifically, we ask,
If someone were to ask the following two questions, could you provide an answer:
1. I can name at least one thing I do well and that I should consider my strength
AND
2. I know the one area I need to be focusing on to be more effective in my role.
The paltry answer is that only 6% of employees say they can answer these two basic questions on the heels of having their performance conversations.
So, what did transpire during the performance meeting?
I then ask, “So what were you thinking about when you had your performance review meeting with your supervisor?”. Here are the most common responses:
- What was my rating?
- What were the negative things said about my p erformance
- I was on high alert for any new and surprising information
- How will this review impact my promotional and development opportunities?
- What is my pay raise?
All of these distractions are take aways from having an impactful meaningful conversation about performance. The stakes are too high and the whole exchange screams of an uncomfortable let’s get this over as soon as possible moment for both the employee and manager.
What Purpose Does This Process Serve?
If you can remove the ratings from the performance process you can eliminate at least one barrier. Ask yourself, “What purpose do ratings serve?” (if your answer is to calculate pay raises there are better more effective ways to calculate this) AND “What is the intent of the performance review process anyway?” It should be to reiterate conversations that have taken place during the year by reinforcing good performance, recognizing strengths and contributions help to recalibrate performance that needs development and setting goals. It should not however be used to take the place of regular one-one-one conversations.
If you must have ratings please consider the following:
Do not have ratings for every section of the form. For example, if you’re organization’s competencies are woven into the document provide the opportunity for supporting commentary against each of the major competency area but eliminate rating each and every competency area. Too many ratings in the form = rater burnout and then trying to come up with an overall score can be tricky.
Instead, have one overall rating section at the end of the form. Here’s a sample from one company, PatientKeeper, which worked with their manager AND employee population to come up with ratings they could all live with:
|
Exceptional – Performance is consistently exceptional and universally recognized as superior. Employee regularly takes on stretch goals beyond the scope of the position & has exceptional command of the company’s Performance Factors. Accomplishments were made in unexpected areas.
|
|
Exceeds Expectations – Performance is consistently and significantly above what is required for the position. All goals and objectives were achieved above the established standards. Employee consistently exceeds expectations across most of the company’s Performance Factors.
|
|
Meets Expectations – Performance is dependable and meets the requirements of the position and at times will exceed some requirements. Employee meets expectations across most of the company’s Performance Factors. Note that a rating at this level may also reflect the individual is in a growth and learning mode in terms of the job performance and/or the company’s Performance Factors. Greater growth and development in the role can and are in the process of being achieved. New employees, newly promoted or transferred employees generally fall into this category. Areas for growth are noted within this document..
|
|
Improvement Required – Performance occasionally meets the requirements of the position & some assignments, but is somewhat below expectations. Employee is not meeting minimum expectations across several of the company’s Performance Factors.
|
|
Unsatisfactory – Performance fails to meet the minimum requirements of the job. Employee is consistently below expectations across most of the company’s Performance Factors. Specific improvements are required in significant areas, as detailed in this review.
|