In a message dated 98-02-15 23:04:56 EST, RBacal writes:
> I think the training part is important...In the organization I worked in
> there was a performance management policy, an extensive training program
> that focused on the "best" way to do it...hundreds upon hundreds were
> trained. The results were probably negligible.
It could be argued that the training program itself was deficient, not the
performance management policy, nor the "'best' way to do it", which the
training program intended to impart. This could be a case of barking up
the wrong tree.
> I think, as a learning process, we need to explore that phenomenon to
> understand why people avoid doing them, or dislike doing them.
We may even start by studying the people you just described. Quality gurus
have also warned us about these kind of people, even as they pointed out
the critical role of systems and processes in the quest for quality. No
doubt we have met a number of them in our organizations. We may even have
been one ourselves at some point in the past.
It could be argued that some people in organizations will always avoid
doing performance appraisals or will always dislike doing them for reasons
largely, or even totally, unrelated to the objectives of the performance
management policy itself, its implementing guidelines, or the training
program that orients its users. It is possible that some people are, for
example, just afraid/uncomfortable about having to deliver or receive bad
news (i.e., they don't like telling their staff they're not doing well, or
they don't like being told themselves they're not doing well). Or are just
averse to setting aside the usual and routinary to spend some time
collating performance data, reflecting, evaluating, doing write-, and/or
or finally making "stressful" decisions (could be said of both reviewers
and reviewees). There could conceivably be a number of variations of this
theme, but none may ever be articulated publicly and formally, precisely
because they are "personal". So some people simply resort to shooting down
the policy itself, its guidelines, or the related training program. It
makes one's contra arguments more reasoned and substantial as it, in
addition, conveniently masks one's own wimpy and lazy traits.
> If you ask a hundred people to do carpentry with a bent hammer, does it
> make sense to train them for days to use the bent hammer, or give them a
> straight one? And what will be the perceptions of those forced to use the
> bent hammer?
Unless for some weird, perhaps masochistic/sadistic, experiment, why would
a responsible person consciously train people to do carpentry with a bent
hammer in the first place? For that matter, why would a responsible
management consciously have people trained to do performance management
with PA system they know is faulty? A number, of course, have shot
themselves in the foot in the past and continue to do so. Some
managements, and HR practitioners, routinely draw lessons from their
experiences and move on; others refuse to acknowledge even the most
obvious of their failed experiments. We all have our own war stories to
tell. We have either seen such cases first-hand or have read about them or
both.
But, as a number in the thread have repeatedly pointed out, these cases do
not, at the end of the day, make a definitive argument for altogether
"scrapping" PA systems, or rating or ranking processes. (I could see
though how this "breakthrough" idea could initially help one hold the
attention of his/her boss or potential client for a suspenseful while.)
The fact is a number of organizations have made creative and successful
use of PA systems, including ratings and rankings. I would like to add the
Shell Group of Companies to this list of organizations.
To my mind, it appears reasonable to expect that for as long as a culture
values good work and excellence, ways will be devised to measure and
reward people who exhibit them within that culture. As long as
organizations have to variously answer to owners, shareholders,
stakeholders, employees, associates, donors, benefactors, taxpayers,
regulatory agencies, the courts, etc., there will be a need to measure
various manners and levels of performance "in some form or other." As long
as people make up organizations, people's performance in organizations
will need to be measured "in some form or other." And a number of us will
adopt or develop the PA system, with rating and/or ranking processes even,
that dovetails with our mission and objectives and, hopefully, are largely
understandable and acceptable to our people at a given time and in the
context of a given set of circumstances.
And sooner or later, shrill calls for scrapping PA systems, ratings and/or
rankings will be proven to be just clever marketing copy -- as an
organization I worked with found out a few years back.
My two cents' worth.
Chuck Gesmundo
Minneapolis, MN
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>