Posted by Justin Field on June 20, 2011
Folks, we’re in the midst of performance appraisals again. Yes, I used the dreaded ‘appraisal’ word because it heavily embedded in our culture. But I wish that it wasn’t about appraisal in the sense of judgement. It makes employees nervous and fretful, and gives managers headaches about what to say, how to say it, and how to deliver bad feedback. What I really wish for is a world where:
- employees look forward to the performance review cycle as a meaningful way of having a chat about how they are doing in their role
- managers feel comfortable with reviewing an employee’s performance, giving good concrete examples of desirable and undesirable behaviours
- employees have a crystal clear picture of the year ahead, and the expectations that the manager has
Sometimes we focus too much on having a good computer system to help with the performance review. But in truth, the computer system is just a way of supporting the process. For employees and managers to derive value from the process, they have to engage with open minds and with a willingness to learn.
Posted in performance, productivity, technology | Tagged: performance appraisal, performance management, performance review, productivity | 3 Comments »
Posted by Justin Field on June 21, 2010
Well, folks, we are in the midst of our annual performance review season. You won’t guess the Number 1 question I get asked (well, maybe you’re smart and you will guess it): why should I do a performance appraisal? What’s in it for me?
Sadly, most people take a selfish and purely financial view of the corporate world. If the performance review doesn’t result an any salary increment, then why do it? What’s the point? And that is one possible view of the world. To those people, I ask: aren’t you interested in getting any feedback about how well you’ve done over the past year? Don’t you want to know if you’ve done anything badly? Or something that you could learn to do better in the year ahead?
Don’t you want to grow your own skills and competencies? Or would you rather just sit, like a lump of coal, and do nothing with your career and with your life.
Since you’re spending at least 40 hours a week at work, and perhaps significantly more, wouldn’t you want to be happy and motivated and fulfilled and flooded with energy every morning as you wake up? Or would you rather sit around and moan about your manager and your co-workers and let the world wash over you?
Now, some folks might like to let the world wash over them. They’re not interested in feedback. They’re not interested in developing themselves and their careers. And I say: good luck to them. Because it’s pure luck that they have managed to keep their jobs during the GFC and it’s pure luck that their manager still thinks that the employee should stay on. In fact, what do those employees know anyway? They’ve never bothered to wonder; they’ve never bothered to ask.
So, look around you, take stock of your world, and get stuck into your performance review. Don’t make it tedious and boring — make it your chance to shine and your chance to get some realistic feedback about where you are and where you want to go. Put lots of detailed, specific evidence in about your achievements during the year (you’ve saved all those laudatory emails, remember?). And ask your manager about how you can go further and take it to the next level. I bet they’ll be happy that you’ve shown the interest, that you want to be successful and that you want the best for yourself and your career.
Posted in Career Development, development, engagement, performance | Tagged: appraisal, performance management, performance review | 5 Comments »
Posted by Justin Field on December 22, 2009
Well, folks, we’ve just been through a talent review here. You might think the process is fairly well understood and everything should just go smoothly, but of course, real life is not that smooth, and nor is a talent review.
One of the problems we faced was around the calibration of performance ratings. Specifically, employees with a performance rating of 3 don’t get on the shortlist of top talent; those with 4 or 5, have a chance, but naturally we’re looking for high potentials among that population.
In the talent review, we discovered that some groups had been very strict with their performance ratings, and that other groups had been lenient. For example, when sales quota was a key measurement of performance, some groups gave quota achievement of 100% a performance rating of 3; other groups gave quota achievement of 90% a performance rating of 4. Result: those cheap (easily won) 4’s distorted the shortlist of talent for that group; the hard won 4’s in other groups came closer to our true definition of top talent.
So what’s the secret of success? I’ve always said that effective performance management is the true foundation of effective talent management. You have to have a good grip on who the top performers are before you can start segmenting that group down to find the high potentials. And in a large organisation, you’d better be sure that the measurement of performance is the same across groups, otherwise it destroys the credibility of the talent review.
My key learning for 2010 is two-fold:
- We have to publish crystal-clear guidelines for groups regarding how to score performance based on key measurements. We need a consistent approach across all groups.
- After the majority of performance ratings are in the performance management system, we need a comprehensive calibration exercise, especially for those groups that will later do a talent review. If we don’t make some effort to calibrate, the talent review itself becomes an exercise in performance calibration, when we really want the talent review to focus on high potential top talent.
Leave a comment with your views on calibrating performance and the impact on talent review.
Posted in performance, succession planning, talent review, top talent | Tagged: calibration, performance management, talent review, top talent | 6 Comments »