Replying to LO20732 and LO20752 (excerpts below) -
[Host's Note: I had to work a bit on the formatting of this msg with
Richard sent as text/enriched with formatting tags... No problem; but if
the attributions are wrong, the error is probably mine. ..Rick]
LO & [worklearning] Colleagues -
Last year Rol Fessenden <76234.3636@compuserve.com> posted another aspect
of the multi-source / 360-degree thread we're now into. Because that
thread was "assessment" and "employee ranking systems" (1/27/98 - LO16715,
replying to LO16691) it is possible that it would not be linked with the
current helpful information from John Gunkler and Richard Scherberger.
Rol said:
>...My experience with people who don't like [employee] ranking
>is that they make it too complicated. ...Miniscule differences between
>individuals...are not practical to distinguish. It is closer to a triage
>in my experience. There are superb performers who deserve recognition.
>...There [is] a very large group of people who are in the mid-range, or
>average performance range. There is another small group that is
>performing below expectations.
> Many people dislike the identification of sub-par performers.
>There are two reasons why it is important. First, the people who
>actually suffer the most from sub-par performers are their [work group]
>peers. Their peers, if they are motivated, will take on extra work to
>make up for the below-average performance of someone in their work group.
> So in a very real and measurable way, below average performance directly
>impacts the nearest neighbors on the work team.
> The second reason to identify sub-par performers is that most of
>the time, these people are not getting any fulfillment out of their work.
> They know they are doing poorly, it does not feel good, they go home at
>the end of the day disappointed in themselves, they probably dislike the
>work and would rather do something else, and as a consequence of all
>these factors, their own and their peers' morale declines. It is
>management's responsibility to do something in these situations. ..."
Rol's "triage" is also a useful concept for performance improvement.
"Triage" thinking is useful for a simple - quick - economical
"multi-source assessment." ("360-degree" most people call it. We find
"multi-source" causes people to think more about what assessment sources
they want to use).
As Rol points out, work group leaders can readily identify three
categories of members within their groups (best, in our experience, if
done in consultation with members): "outstanding performers" with
"strength" in one or more knowledge-skill-ability (KSA) areas. These
individuals can be asked to use their strength KSAs for helping others
improve. This is a positive outcome from John Gunkler's "360 Degree
Affirmation" or "The Love Seat" and Richard Scherberger's "Strength
Bombardment." This helping role gives every member experience with part
of the work of a "performance consultant, learning leader, learning coach,
peer coach" -- whatever term fits the company's culture. "To truly learn,
teach" said a wise person. Helping others improve their work-related KSAs
is certainly a key skill for building a learning organization.
"Competents" are the "OK performers," those having KSAs adequate to do
their jobs. Competents may choose to pick one or two areas they want to
improve as part their individual learning / improvement plan.
"Weak / sub par performers" are those with "improvement needed" in one or
more KSA areas. Their improvement priorities can be identifed by their
own discussions with the work group leader, other group members and their
direct reports (the "normal" 360-degree process) with or without the time,
cost and complexity of formal multi-source assessment surveys.
Our experience is that when a company uses a triage process, begining with
the positive process described by John, and when strengths are used as a
resource for helping others, the "areas of improvement" (already known to
most people) are identified in course of the peer coaching role.
Most people want to help others. Most people want to improve. When the
company's culture supports learning and improvement , and when learning is
viewed as each person's opportunity and responsibility -- with the
company's encouragement and support, then the triage process can become a
normal and ongoing part of performance improvement. Most members will be
working on one or two areas of improvement. Many will also be using their
areas of strength to help other members to improve.
The whole process takes on a positive / improvement / learning flavor.
Everyone is encouraged to learn and grow. Done right (i.e. in the spirit
of learning, growth, knowledge sharing and improvement) the assessment
effort contributes to morale, achievement and improved outcomes. Learning
becomes embedded in day-to-day work as a resource for improving processes,
performance and results. Useful performance criteria include (1) the
number of people preparing a learning plan including a time schedule; (2)
the progress each member is making on learning plan completion (as agreed
to by the member, the work group leader, and a performance consultant);
(3) what KSAs have been improved as evidenced by work-related performance
measures; and (4) what each person has done, using their strength areas,
to help others learn and improve.
An additional resource that adds to the above process is recording
members' KSA strengths in a knowledge data-base. Bain & Co. "...put
together a Web-based system that includes a codified knowledge base of
Bain's best case work and a peer finder that enables consultants [i.e.
company members] to find colleagues who have worked on other cases in the
same general field" (Knowledge Management magazine, March, 1999,
"Brainpower in Reserve" page 26).
Beginning this process with the positive activity described by John
Gunkler can only help improve and probably speed up the process of
job-related learning for improvement of performance, quality, processes,
and results -- and development of the company as a learning organization.
What other resources can be added to this system?
Dick Webster
Richard S. Webster, Ph.D. - President
Personal Resources Management Institute - Worthington, OH
e-mail <webster.1@osu.edu>, fax 614-433-71-88, tel 614-433-7144
***
Institute R&D projects address the paradigm shift from "training,
instruction and teaching" to "learning" -- a key change for continual
improvement of the enterprise (company or other organization), including a
higher-performance culture; "better" leadership, systems and processes,
ideas and quality; more effective use of information and knowledge; higher
involvement, improved performance and productivity of company members and
their teams; with increased profits and other desired results. PRMI is a
501(c)3 non-profit research, development and consulting company founded in
1978.
***
Thought: "Things are getting better and better and worse and worse faster
and faster" (Tom Atlee). Challenge: finding and building the "betters,"
in time. Idea: try "learning" -- "each person's responsibility and
opportunity, with the organization's encouragement and support,
recognition and reward."
--"Richard S. Webster" <webster.1@osu.edu>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>