it looks like you can not be professional journal HR picks up these days, or even in the economic section in a large newspaper, without the discovery of the multiplicity of benefits article from the traditional annual performance evaluation of the judiciary. In fact, I have been whole books recently supported its elimination. Attacking traditional performance with enthusiasm and passion evaluation system experts I have not seen before. In many ways, the interpretation of their attacks as bordering on illogical. I welcome the challenges of the current situation. change is important to stay current. But I would recommend caution when considering the total elimination of basic and key tool for managers and employees alike.
There are many generalizations made about the performance review. One such idea is that defective all the traditional performance appraisal systems. I see this in many books and articles I have read on the subject. However, where the data? I think that while the traditional system has problems, they are exaggerated and simplistic by supporters of the performance of a new era of feedback that lack accountability system. Experts throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water, and the lack of recognition that the traditional system, although it has some weaknesses, still working effectively. I contend that the movement away from the traditional review is a serious one, and can lead us down the road of decline or lack of accountability at work. In this article, I will explore this trend, and why, and alternatives to the traditional review advocated by the "experts", and the risks inherent in the elimination, the solution based on the common sense to re-review the current performance to the atheist and the twentieth century process. The attractiveness of the management functionality without the need to write a review of a strong performance. However, in the long term, this migration away from the tried and true system causes more problems than it aims to reform.
flawed system
First, let's explore what I think is a gross generalization and distortion about the review process, that is, it is deeply flawed.
Quite frankly, if you removed the traditional review of the performance of one side of the commitment of all managers, you are likely to hear a collective cheer across the country. Why is it such a process hated? Because most managers go about this is not true, companies simply do not train on a sound methodology. We get involved in the completion of the form and process, rather than recognize the potential benefits in a good review. We feel that the model is not a means to an end, but an end in itself. Whether you're writing a review of performance on the back of a matchbook or in the form of formal performance review really makes no difference. The difference is in the time it takes you to consider writing and revision, and the amount of input from associates who are of this review, and discussions of quality performance that are part of this review. All these prove that you are interested in the career development of the individual. The problem is compounded by the fact that in many organizations, it is not nurtured in the review process, nor is it encouraged. It is seen mainly as a duty of managers. It is not uncommon to hear the groan managers at the end of the year review, "Oh no! The time has come audited again. Where am I going to find the time to get all these reviews done?" He accused the HR departments, while ensuring that managers fulfill their obligations to review its performance. They hunt routinely after managers and literally beat them to get the review done. In many cases, no one, other than the Director in writing the review and employee obtained, and it takes ever the time to read the review. Since managers do not take it seriously, and they often "pencil whip" their way through this process. Thus, the staff are on the receiving end do not put a lot of stock in it. So, the first reason to use the so-called experts as a rallying cry for the elimination of this review is that no one takes seriously. Is it any wonder?
There is another reason to move away from the traditional assumption that the review is in its current form, the process does not encourage the parties to engage in dialogue about performance related issues. Critics believe that this process, "which is dominated by Boss," does not allow any give and take, or explore the performance areas that could be improved. I have no doubt that there are bad managers who are just going through the motions in writing, discuss the review. And quickly send management obligations by pressuring their partners to sign a written form. In fact, the human resources manager, and I've actually had to deal with such types. But this does not mean that the system is flawed. It simply means that it has not been implemented properly, and that the managers are not held themselves accountable for productivity review.
I've read that the performance review process needs to be changed because of the nature of work and manpower, which is significantly different from that of the 190s and earlier decades. Related to this is a useful excuse that the Y-generation and the Millennium does not react positively to the traditional review. They grew up in a world of cooperation and collaboration; it does not work well in an environment which refers to defects with little constructive advice and guidance. (This is how the naysayers traditional review process describes the current performance evaluation we have.) I agree with this position to some extent. Yes, unlike other generations, it was taught Y generation, particularly Millennials, cooperation and collaboration beyond what was older generations. However, I think that, depending on how lifting and schools they attended, they were still being held accountable, and they were taught good performance advantages. They want and need good feedback. And, as an aside, I am less inclined than many of my contemporaries HR to distinguish between the older and younger generations. All generations want more quality cooperation, collaboration, and constructive feedback. Maybe it's the younger generation that causes us to see this reality more clearly than ever before. I have personally witnessed that they no longer want to wait for the annual review for feedback. They want instant gratification. This is actually a good thing. I have no problem with this change in our workforce and their desire to further reactions immediately. But good evaluation system, even under the old traditional framework, will not work effectively unless there are touch points on the performance throughout the year. This is not a new concept. Critics insist that these points touch has never been part of the traditional review process. Not right.
another blow against this review is that it is a system designed to find fault and blame, rather than a balanced approach that explores both the achievements and shortcomings. Here again after another bad assumption that companies do not use a balanced approach with the current system. I continued devoted Ken Blanchard. In fact, I preach and teach about many of the things recommended in his many books leadership. in one minute management [1], Blanchard discusses what is known as "praise min -1" and "1 minute reprimand." Basically, good managers do not even annual review to discuss the challenges faced by waiting. Blanchard encourages managers to do so at the time of the offense or the performance shortfall. Blanchard release of the book for the first time in 1981. The forward-thinking companies have been using this approach for years. True, bad managers do not use this approach. However, thirty years of experience of human resources tells me that bad managers who are poor job with the current evaluation system allegedly defective, it is also likely to be bad managers under any approved system. The key is to teach managers to be good at evaluating and assessing performance, regardless of the user's system. The solution will not be found in a new system, or any system, for that matter. The answer is in the organization's commitment and led to the performance appraisal process.
critics traditional review also quick to point out that the bureaucrats in human resources so as not to reconsider the performance evaluation before being placed in the personnel files. While I have no doubt that this is happening in some organizations, you can not make a statement sweeping and broad like that in. Before he moved to the current tournament, I personally would review each performance evaluation (about 300) by our directors to sit down and even discuss it with their partners. Critics go on to say that the human resources are concerned only with the identification of those areas in the reviews that could be potential legal landmines are. This also is not true. I would like to routinely identify areas where the rates of performance, either too low or too high. I would then follow up with managers to make sure that it has developed and provided specific examples in the review meetings to prove those classifications.
They say that the performance audit is the process of looking back, not forward. Review is not present, and they do not focus on the goals, we are told. Each performance appraisal system has been implemented in my career has had a branch of the targets for the next review. Among them it was on schedule touch points throughout the year to make sure if there is a need for corrections in the middle of the road on those objectives. The review process used cooperative, in fact. He asked the staff to look at those things that you want to do or want to learn. Alignment with those managers assigned to them by their superiors in the annual work plan objectives. The new targets to be based on reality. They need to help the department achieve its goals and objectives of the work. It also was a professional development goals part of this process.
I could go on and on other examples of the misconceptions of the current system of evaluation. For the sake of brevity, however, and we will move on to discuss the so-called experts as an alternative to the traditional system recommends.
and experts alternatives
review the performance of new systems failed school movement in the 1970s to eliminate or reduce the use of reminds me strongly grades for students. And it gained no traction simply because individuals think more clearly in academia realized that there is only one way to hold people accountable: they need to be graded on their performance. This is just as true in business as it is in the school. Basically, it is encouraged informal systems for which there will be no pressure on managers to complete formal evaluation forms. The managers scheduling informal meetings throughout the year, along with hold more formal meetings if any challenges became apparent performance. This system, they say, will lead to more criticism of the effectiveness of performance, opening up an interesting dialogue between managers and employees.
Let us examine how this system should work. First, let me give the devil his due: In an ideal world, some of the proposed alternatives work just fine. It, in fact, provides great reactions to the performance, and enable managers and associates to determine the correct behaviors and shortages. The problem is clear, however, is that we live in a world far from ideal. The utopian vision for their business, and everyone runs throughout the year and the presence of these informal talks.
notice
risks and pitfalls of many of the proposed system, and are often overlooked by those who pay for a replacement. First and foremost, the thing that is most disturbing to me, is the lack of accountability, both on the part of managers and staff. Under the new system, a show of accountability to a myriad of things: get the review meetings do, and document any problems that may arise, and follow-up and counseling for employees on the receiving end of negative feedback is the formal What are their responsibilities to move forward. Signing anything and revived something. So, where is the incentive to change and / or improve performance?
After that, there is no historical record of performance. Can be disabled to a new coach manages. How will the new managers learn about their teams, about what they are capable, of what they have accomplished, and where they have fallen short?
Let's not forget the lawyers work. Sharks are waiting at each corner for employers to make mistakes and errors. Critics gloss comfortably on this reality. I learned first hand that the lack of documentation and performance can often lead to big legal judgments against organizations. It is a sad reality that we live in a society superior litigation. But is in fact a reality. I'm not suggesting that performance reviews be written for the sole purpose is to provide a legal defense. I will admit that some managers will take this approach, padding the file in the event of litigation. But a good, well-written, the traditional performance review, with the primary purpose-oriented objective performance measurement and goal setting, and it will offer themselves naturally in a good legal defense if necessary.
how to differentiate between the performance of our staff without measuring it? If we do not define it in the review using a standard formula model, how do you justify the granting of increases in salaries and various bonuses? Any discretionary awards without basis in objective review scores would be seen as arbitrary. Although I am reluctant to provide lawyers in the discussion again, I have to face the fact that plaintiffs' lawyers will stick to this as an opportunity.
solution
I do not want to be critical without offering alternatives. So, what is the type of system performance can visualize it is effective for all generations of workers in the current business climate? At the risk of oversimplification, I would just increase the traditional performance review. My include the following action steps System
- approximately one month before the date of the annual review, inviting staff to start looking at performance over the preceding twelve months. And ask the staff for:
- to think about the extent they met (or do not meet) their goals, and why.
- consider how it maintains itself in the form of a performance review of factors (using the same rating scale that will be used by the manager). I would like to make this step is optional, and will not require that employees share their ratings with managers who do their reviews.
- look at what they see as successes and failures. The things we think they did well, and those things that have faced some challenges can not be overcome.
- review the job description to determine whether anything about work have changed, and if the description needs to be modified to reflect these changes (which in turn will affect the goals go forward).
- approximately two weeks before the date of the review, held individual meetings with the staff. Ask employees to talk openly about all the things that were asked of view. The goal of managers is to listen, not to judge, criticize, or respond; simply to make a note of the responses of employees act for their performance.
- through data managers that have been collected throughout the year review, along with the responses provided by the staff at the first meeting of the above, and grading and to comment on its performance. Then put the plan to a discussion based on:
- these performance factors as classified by the employee for which you do not agree.
- reasons for not achieving the goals.
- changes in the job description.
- on or about the date of the audit, and the second time to meet with employees. At this stage, it has not yet completed a formal review model. This will be the next discussion should focus on the three areas mentioned in the above step. And managers discuss every area of the problem frankly and openly. It will keep an open mind to determine whether there are any mitigating factors that might cause them to change the initial review of tens.
- managers put the finishing touches on the forms of the official review and send them to employees for review. Staff are instructed to review it, and if they believe further discussion is necessary, to schedule a time.
- was signed several days to review and finalize, using staff ideas about the goals for the coming year, and will hold a separate meeting to discuss those goals in a cooperative manner. Once completed, this will be appended to the official review, which has already been signed.
- Mandate talks touch point suggested earlier and held once every calendar quarter at least. It will be documented and placed in the personnel files. You will be given a copy of the staff.
- During the review year, managers must maintain files on each of the partners. Every time there is a big performance event and praise from a client, a superior or a peer, every time there was a lack of performance or the goal has not been, and is talking with staff and document files. Then use these files as a basis for the next performance review. Where employees want information relevant to the review in the talks touch points, specific examples of the task when discussing performance. With this file, you'll have a whole year worth of examples.
- Finally, according to the philosophy of one minute Blanchard, director, managers make specific comments when something happens. They do not wait for the quarterly Touch conversation points or annual review.
after
With respect to the discussion of salary increase (or lack thereof), it is vital that this will take place in a separate meeting. If you try to comingle performance and compensation discussions at the same meeting, it is likely that only focus on the money employees. If you own a discussion of money at the end of the meeting, you risk the employee does not participate in the review of a constructive conversation. It is likely to focus on the end of the meeting, waiting for the increase to be awarded. If you own a discussion of compensation at the beginning of the review meeting, employees are likely to be busy with the increase already granted, you do not hear much about what will follow the performance.
Is this easy? No. Is it a waste of time? at all. But I believe that with this system you have the best of both worlds: the old system, which provides accountability, and some new techniques recommended by experts. In my career, I worked in organizations that are committed to excellence. They were willing to spend time and money to train managers on how to assess performance. The managers were held accountable at every level to make a review of the quality of performance.
conclusion
As I have mentioned several times, I am deeply concerned about the world where there is a lack of accountability. I can not agree with the informal system, the primary objective of which is to make people "feel good." Most of the alternatives that provide experts are mere palliatives. Feel-good techniques that look and sound great, but in the end, lacking in substance.
No, and Performance Review did not die . Current performance and system flaws. Undoubtedly, there is room for improvement. But I still think it is the most effective means to measure, discuss, and improve performance. In the final analysis, the old and the new can meet somewhere in the middle. We have to integrate further discussion and feedback in a timely manner in this process; the cooperative is to identify targets more necessary as well.
We live in an age where people say that change is necessary in many aspects of our lives and in business. Read about the change on the Internet; we hear him on radio and television. Change has become part of the national character. In fact, there need to be a lot of change in many areas. But we have to be careful that we do not just change for it. If we tell people something often enough, it will eventually come to believe it is true. This applies to disparage the traditional review of performance. Articles in newspapers, magazines and specialist periodicals appear with increasing frequency.
0 Komentar