In my view this does not have to mean that we give up systems and processes to ensure formalized performance meetings and feedback – these are important, and should remain. It seems to me that there is no reason why an effective performance management process cannot be put in place to identify and reward high performing staff and to manage poor performance ensuring the core objectives of forced distribution can continue to be met following any re-evaluation of approach, but that we also look to a fairer, more reliable process that fosters better engagement, collaboration and wellbeing. There is significant research and challenge to the compatibility of forced or guided ratings processes to employee morale and engagement. One of the biggest barriers to innovation is structural and cultural inertia. I have listed out some of the negative impacts of current practices in the appendix to this article under three headings – Morale and Engagement, Fairness and Accuracy, and Business Performance. Depersonalized approaches to management will fail even more with newer generations, who place even more emphasis on self-expression and meaningful work than previous generations.' Think about forced-ranking performance evaluation systems that insist on leaders identifying at least half of their employees as below average. He contrasts this with organisations that depersonalize work and states: 'But even as the demands on employees have shifted towards creativity and innovation, we still see bureaucratic job titles, inflexible roles, and systems that generate fear and depersonalization instead of excitement, self-expression and creativity. Notably a number of law firms are rejecting the ratings and bell-curve approach.ĭan Cable, author of “Alive at Work”, is a powerful proponent of 'strengths-based management techniques' and references data in his book showing that firms applying coaching and job crafting techniques to performance management improved customer and employee engagement and staff retention. A number of service sectors are increasingly rejecting performance ratings and forced or guided distribution bell-curves, seeing them as a barrier to the kind of working environment they are seeking to create. This can be seen, for example, through the many posts that can be seen on Linked-In by various companies, responding to the need to create more diverse, innovative, engaged and collaborative working environments. Then, managers will normally apply a guided or fixed percentage distribution bell-curve to each rating to set variable pay and inform career prospects.Įmployers have generally sought to make significant steps to provide opportunities for staff to develop and to provide an inclusive and supportive environment. A typical rating scale will provide for poor, good and top performance assessed against applicable ratings definitions, taking guidance from the employees’ objectives. Employers assess staff using a rating scale which will vary between employers. To identify, reward and manage staff performance. Objectives of performance ratings and bell-curves For employers who evaluate their staff using performance ratings and forced or guided bell-curves, is now the time to reconsider approach?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |