Every manager is required to do Performance Appraisals. Generally, the season for this is once a year. The employees keenly look forward to this, because they are expecting a ‘good grade’ after a year of hard work and more importantly, their compensation increase would be based on this. The managers, usually, do not look forward to this season. During this time, all the ‘work’ stops and only this ‘HR activity’ happens. The 3rd party in this season is the HR team. This is their time, and they push the whole system to get the ‘job’ done. The ‘policy’ already exists, and all clarifications and questions generally are answered with the ‘policy statements’. All departments are required to meet the ‘normal’ distribution of the ratings.
So why do managers generally detest this? There is this huge emotional dialogue and debate with the team members. They get upset. Managers get emotionally overdrawn. Each review lasts for a couple of hours, without seeming to reach a closure (you thought you closed it and pop…there is an email in your inbox from the employee raising some or same points again!). A few even ask for group change and occasionally some even leave citing bad review! Who likes this anyway?
The more important question is – How to do this right? Let’s start with the expected outcome. The employee must feel good after the review and look forward to doing more in future with the manager and the company. The manager is very hopeful for employee’s growth and performance.
A manager has to play the judge and deliver a verdict about the performance of the employee. As a Judge, you carefully look at all the data, and make a judgment taking into account the law (in this case the policy). The big difference here is that the Judge is himself or herself involved – they provide the relevant data and then judge it too, and the employee is judging the Judge too (is my manager being fair to me?). Hence there is an inherent conflict of interest here. If the employee’s expectations are not met, then he/she gets frustrated.
In order to accomplish the goal, the manager, perhaps needs to become the coach of the employee. A coach is also making judgments. But there is a difference. A successful coach earns the trust of his team. The team knows that the coach is working towards their success. This is all the job of the coach is. Hence they listen to the coach. The coach gets to know the ‘game’ and the ‘capability’ of each of the members, and then helps each of them to make a plan to make this better. Trust means that the team does not doubt the agenda of the coach. The agenda is obvious – the team wins and this can happen only when each of the members gets better, and this is what the coach is working on. The coach is helping on a regular basis. He/she is giving pointed feedback, and then asking how the team member plans to improve. The coach gives his/her own suggestions too. A good coach is very demanding, much more than managers. But his/her team listens because they have unwavering trust in the coach – that he/she has their success in mind, and that he/she is competent.
A manager despite competence finds it hard to become as effective as a coach. The team members may not be sure whose success the manager is interested in – theirs or his/her own. Most of the time the manager spends time reviewing the task and not connect to the employee. Employee thinks that manager is focused on the project success (i.e., his own success) and does not care about employee’s interests. It is hard to have a trusting relationship in this situation. Sometimes, there is also lack of clarity on the overall goal. And hence the feedback looks like a judgment, and team members could feel violated because they consider the manager as an outsider rather than as one of them. To top it all, most managers do not give feedback for improvement until the ‘season’, that is once a year, through the review. The employee gets a surprise, and we all know that unpleasant surprises of this type do not build trust.
Perhaps we as managers must see ourselves as coaches who are able to demand high performance from their team because the team trusts them completely. The right way to measure the success of a review is that a manager mails the review document to his team members in advance and asks for a meeting. Many employees say they are willing to sign it off without the meeting. The meetings last for 30 to 45 minutes and are focused on discussing the future, and not arguing about the past. And, the team wants to retain the same coach!
Irrespective of the strengths or limitations of the Performance Appraisal Policy of their company, good managers earn the trust of their team and are able to drive their performance, and make them successful. They are able to Make A Difference to their team. Everyone wants to work with these managers. And the HR team can perhaps focus on how to enable managers to be coaches.
Question 1: In your experience, what determines the success of a Performance Appraisal System?
Question 2: What is the main reason for its failure?
Your thoughts and questions will be a learning opportunity for everyone. Won’t you like to (be) M.A.D.?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
One of the most important things that I have found about appraisals is that the whole process has to be a continuous one rather than a once in a year phenomenon. Starting at the beginning of the year when KRA's and measurement criteria are agreed, there has to be a periodic discussion with the team member to ensure that when the final discussion happens at the end of the year, there are no surprises.
I have found that this is the major problem that faces most managers. Since they have either not clearly enunciated the KRA's and measurement criteria at the beginning of the evaluation period or not worked with the team member along the year at regular intervals so that the variances and necessary corrective actions are discussed, the discussion at the end of the year becomes emotionally charged.
Sanjiv
Ashish:
I find Performance Reviews a bit challenging and strenuous. In my personal experience, worked in 5 different companies and always left somewhat wanting.
Major challenge is building of rapport and trust between the Manager and people who he/she is reviewing. Another challenges have been:
1. Some times people do it because this has to be done (Compliance)
2. Its a once or twice a year activity
3. Manager does not put serious efforts into the KPI's. I have seen similar 'generic' comments passed to more than one team member
4. Managees (those who are getting appraisal) don't plan or know what they want to achieve/learn given the work they are doing.
5. Lack of clarity on goals of the Manager/Firm and how the individual's goals are aligned (or could be aligned) to the same
And I could continue on and on.
What could possibly be done differently:
1. Instead of once or twice a year, have a continuous dialogue (May be, one focussed meeting every month)
2. Involvement of 3rd Party: like a Performance / Life coach / Mentor
This person might be a colleague, a fellow Manager of other team, someone in HR or an external agency who becomes a link and has confidential knowledge of the performance dialogue between the Manager and the Managees (is that a word -:))
This person helps understand the communication and create a common reality/goal
3. Both parties (Manager and Managee) need to be aware of the Companies Vision, their project and how they align to their personal goals.
4. Managers have the responsibility to create a conducting atmosphere for a 'WE' dialogue and not 'Me vs Them'
5. Managees need to take responsibility of their own growth and to ask themselves why are they doing what they are doing and how can their work be useful to them.
6. Action points: Any appraisal is not useful if there are no 'Action' points at the end along with the timeline/steps etc to complete those actions. Again the role of a Coach is crucial here.
And I could again continue on and on.
There is still one thing I personally struggle with: Self Appraisal.
- How much critical you can be? (and same on 'Self Praise')
- How to make sure your critical comments do not hinder your progress in the Firm (Making assumption you want to grow in the firm)
- May be two versions of 'Self Appraisal' : one which Management would be happy with and one which seriously helps you to recognise your strengths and weaknesses)
(Aadesh : would you cover 'Self Appriasal' in a separate blog? That would be interesting)
Keep the words flowing.
Cheers,
Ashish
Question 1: In your experience, what determines the success of a Performance Appraisal System?
TRUST. This is built over a period through communication, openness, transparency, involvement, inclusiveness and inegrity of intent. What seems impossible becomes do-able, once TRUST exists.
Question 2: What is the main reason for its failure?
MISTRUST. This is built over a period through experiences of getting cheated and victimised by colleagues or superiors. No System would succeed in a climate where there is MISTRUST between the participants.
Regds
GP
I should pass it on to my manager. Excellent post! I think one of the big factors that is responsible for success and failure of the PA is "intent" of the reviewer. If the intention of the reviewer is good and make the PA an effective and fruitful process then I am sure that the reviewer would be a good coach and ensure an effective PA. If the intention is not good or "don't care" then the PA process suffers.
Another aspect that complicates the review process is the matrixed organizations. The reviewer is far-removed from knowing what the reviewee does on a daily basis or monthly basis or even half-yearly basis. However, if the reviewer has the intent then the PA process would be that much more effective and fair.
On the ligther side - I would pass it to my manager but my PA is coming up :)
There is no question, the starting point is establishing clear and objective performance measures at the year beginning and conducting quarterly / half yearly performance discussions surrounding the same.
Together with this managers need to turn the discussion around development and willingness to learn. Working with their team member to establish competencies required for their current role, opportunities for them to bridge any gap therein. Also to carry the discussion forward and map competencies required for their next aspired job role and guiding them through the learning map to reach their.
Pawan
Aadesh, you have touched upon one important aspect of a manager as a coach and I guess that is the key. But how many of us put ourselves in the shoes of a coach and how many remain connected with the team on a regular basis and how many of us encourage (appreciate) the good moves (whether big or small) and how many of us give a constructive feedback when one is off the track. I think all these traits of a good coach instill the TRUST factor in the team members and help in accepting the manager as a coach. Coaches have to at times lead from the front and demonstrate the right attitude towards the team progress and the objective.
I think what even makes the appraisal process simple and less embarrassing for the manager is to define and track the objectives on a regular basis and this leaves no room for surprises at the end of the year.I think one needs to be MAD, think out of box, go extra mile,care for the team, empower them, counsel them and give constructive feedback......
Why Performance assessment fails
Mainly because of two reasons, one it is done too late and then it is mostly subjective and based on perception rather then based on facts or based on quantitative targets.
Any feedback which is given long after the activity is complete and that too in a subjective manner cannot be very effective. In most of the organization, performance assessment is done once in a year, during the year, assessee normally works on many activities, some get completed beginning year, some mid-year and some get completed late that year. Assessor would normally have the last impression in his/her mind and might get biased with that. Moreover, activities which got completed beginning the year might not be well remembered by both assessee and assessor, which leads to a gap especially if assessor’s feedback is not positive.
So, any positive feedback is always welcomed but any negative feedback is not liked if it is not current and not backed by enough quantitative data.
So to make performance assessment effective, it is important to give feedback immediately after the activity is complete. Because as Aadesh mentioned, the role of a manager should be of a coach and coach is effective if he/she is concerned about the growth of his/her team members and encourages them on the job well done and gives them a constructing and most importantly a timely feedback for the aspects which need improvement.
Before a manager gives feedback for the activities assigned to an individual, the expectations and the targets should be defined before even the activity is started. This will greatly reduce any gaps when the feedback is given after the activity is complete. For both of these things, i.e. setting the right expectation/targets and giving the feedback after the activity is complete need not to be done in a very formal way through a tool and following a approval hierarchy. Even done through an email exchange and recorded in a document on a periodic basis and then using it as a reference in the year-end performance management activity will definitely make the year-end exercise much more effective and fruitful to both assessee and assessor.
Post a Comment