I think John Constantines comments miss the mark on several points,
the major one being that there is little accounting for the goal of
process improvement. Most organizations (except for certain
non-profits) are rated according to their bottom line and thus, in an
indirect way, the quality of their product, be it people or things.
The missing link in Mr. Constantines posting in the intensity and
importance of the feedback (not just during the evaluation period)
between the employee and the manager. The object of a performance
review is (or at least,should be) to rate the employee against a
stated goal. The employee should be rewarded for meeting or exceeding
the goal, but not punished for falling short.
Mr. Constantine writes:
> ...and they must then be "trained" or "coached" to do better, what
>does that do to the individual? It suppresses any behaviors which
>might negatively impact next time he comes in for an evaluation.
That is EXACTLY the point. What possible good could come from
rewarding behavior that negatively impacts the stated goal? If such
behavior is so ubiquitous, then it points to the fact that the
employee is in the wrong position. Of course this doesn't necessarily
mean that the employee has chosen the wrong vocation, but may mean
that the employee cannot perform in _that_ environment. It is up to
the manager to bring out the best in all of their reporting people.
Managers with high attrition or poor departmental productivity have
failed as managers and should be rated by _their_ managers
accordingly.
Training and coaching is only part an the on going process that is a
piece of the continuous feedback loop (between employee and manager).
It is up to the employee to work out peripheral issues with their
manager that may negatively impact performance. Only then can generic
evaluation systems be properly applied to all employees. I really
don't think that most evaluation processes have been designed to take
the human element out of employee appraisals. In fact, most of the I
have been involved with (and I have seen many) give generous allowance
for subjective analysis of the employees performance with respect to
the employees state of mind. In my opinion, the manager who can help
an employee over come factors which would otherwise limit the
employees performance while maintaining the employees self-esteem is a
great manager.
Mr. Constantine again:
>Are employees pieces of clay, to be molded? Why were they hired in
>the first place, and were they found to have been inferior products
>requiring "developing", "measuring", "ergonomics???", and in need of
>a coach?
>This does not describe a healthy organization ....
Yes, we are all pieces of clay and we are constantly being molded by
outside factors (that affect our psyche). True, the individual has to
_want_ to change. I don't want an individual with no desire for
personal growth or improvement working for-or-with me. It is part of
management to help employees 'develop' through 'coaching', thereby
increasing productivity for the organization as a whole. A healthy
organization indeed DOES require constant evaluation, measurement, and
constant improvement. The organization that does not require these
things is the most unhealthy of all, for it has nowhere to go.
james_carrington@hp.com
--JAMES_H_CARRINGTON@HP-Chelmsford-om1.om.hp.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>