Think about all of the urban myths out there. From kidney harvesting to using flour as a burn remedy - they all seem to stick in general. But why is that? Is there a formula? Well according to Chip and Dan Heath, there is.
After the GrowCo conference and listening to Dan Heath speak live, I decided to re-read the book "Made to Stick". It's truly amazing how reading a book once, before experiencing anything (in my case, before running a business), is almost like reading a book for the first time on the second round, when you can actually put basic points into practice.
The next few blogs will be an attempt to try and get the idea of "Renegade HR" stuck in the heads of my readers, using the book (in chapter by chapter format) as it's base. This may turn out to be a disaster in which case, I'm certain I'll abandon this notion sooner than later. But for now, this is the direction I'm going in.
The first chapter in "Made to Stick" is all about making your principle idea, simple. Not so simple that you're dumbing it down and not so compact that it loses intensity. But simple enough for people to grab on to and just get.
Now the notion of HR and simplicity do not typically go hand in hand. In fact, it may be why I have a business in the first place. But it's not that HR can't be simple, it's more to do with the fact that because it's dealing with people we automatically make it complex. I agree that "one-size-fits-all" based solutions aren't necessarily the way to go, but honestly, breaking the activity into it's simplest form and trying to figure out the end result desired makes whatever program, practice, or strategy in place simple.
A recent example includes the design of a performance review process:
EHR: Why do you want a performance review?
Client:To provide feedback to employees on both their strengths and areas they can improve on.
EHR: Why formalize it?
Client: So we have a record of improvement. And because the employees want it.
EHR: How often do you want to do it?
Client: I like to think I do it all the time. But formally - once a year.
I provide my client with a simple form - one that can be easily populated with four questions to direct conversation. The response: That's it? It's just too simple. I laughed. We discussed it more, I showed him a few templates and we made it more complicated (we added ranking systems, training plans etc.) After he went through the entire review process with all of his staff, here was his response:
Client: Can we make it more simple for next year? I think I just want a one pager - the form seems to have taken away from a true conversation and mentorship.
It's funny - the simple form made it seem like it was too simple, and yet that's all they client really wanted in the first place. We have this need to make things more complex. HR becomes complex because we get in the way of ourselves. Forms, policies, procedures don't manage people - managers manage people. An HR support system just makes it simpler (if you let it be, that is.)
Elevated HR Solutions is a new approach to HR and management. Stop looking at HR as if it's a heavy task weighing on your shoulders and if you ignore the problem long enough it will just go away. Unfortunately, people issues don't just disappear and that's when HR starts to get really difficult. We can help you to simplify your management processes (without getting in the way) - after all, I'm sure you've got better ways to spend your time!
Showing posts with label Performance Management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Performance Management. Show all posts
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Elevated HR Solutions: Getting your staff involved in the performance management process
A best practice in performance management is definitely to get a complete review of your employees by utilizing feedback from themselves, from their peers, from their clients, as well as yourself as management. It's definitely not an easy process to engage in, and dependent on how big your organization/department is, it can be a very arduous task taking careful coordination and constant reminders. While anonymous information is best, it too can be skewed. Building your organization up to provide such intricate and a total 360 review of staff can take months, teaching soft skills and ensuring that giving and receving feedback is done so in manner that is respectful. While feedback is a gift, it's not always perceived that way.
The one recommendation I do make however, is to always get feedback from a self-evaluation point of view before writing the performance review for the employee. This allows you as the manager to do the following:
1.) You can see if you're actually in alignment with your employees - you can assess to see if they have actually taken cues from your feedback throughout the year and incorporate it into their own self-evaluations.
2.) You can prepare for the interview better, knowing examples they have used and incorporating such ideas into the final performance review. Working collaboratively will make the process easier, more enjoyable, and gives management great clues into where they need to step up their game in terms of giving feedback throughout the year.
I've had a few managers struggle with this process - but given the alternative, which is walking in cold into a performance review interview, not knowing what your employees are really thinking about their performance - now that's a scary thought! Getting them involved in the process is truly a great way to start your feedback process!
The one recommendation I do make however, is to always get feedback from a self-evaluation point of view before writing the performance review for the employee. This allows you as the manager to do the following:
1.) You can see if you're actually in alignment with your employees - you can assess to see if they have actually taken cues from your feedback throughout the year and incorporate it into their own self-evaluations.
2.) You can prepare for the interview better, knowing examples they have used and incorporating such ideas into the final performance review. Working collaboratively will make the process easier, more enjoyable, and gives management great clues into where they need to step up their game in terms of giving feedback throughout the year.
I've had a few managers struggle with this process - but given the alternative, which is walking in cold into a performance review interview, not knowing what your employees are really thinking about their performance - now that's a scary thought! Getting them involved in the process is truly a great way to start your feedback process!
Monday, December 27, 2010
Termination Decisions: HR or Management?
So today it happened twice:
I'm watching "Better Off Ted" --> a show about a company focusing primarily on the research and development department of a large organization. It's the second season, second episode and the show is about potential lay offs in the department. They are talking about the termination process and the line starts with "When HR decides to terminate someone..." My husband looks over at me and giggles. "See even TV says it's your decision to terminate people. No wonder people are scared of you." (He thinks he's funny.)
And then...
I'm reading my favorite online magazine, Inc. Magazine. The heading reads "2010: The Year in Bizarre HR" and of course I click on the link. It's 9 different stories about terminations or warnings to employees for "bizarre" reasons. And while it says "Bizarre HR" all I could really think was, "Bizarre Management". As far as I know, even if HR "approves" the action, the decision lies with senior management (at least it should).
Here's the article (it's quick and in a slide show format with the option for reading more for each story):
I'm watching "Better Off Ted" --> a show about a company focusing primarily on the research and development department of a large organization. It's the second season, second episode and the show is about potential lay offs in the department. They are talking about the termination process and the line starts with "When HR decides to terminate someone..." My husband looks over at me and giggles. "See even TV says it's your decision to terminate people. No wonder people are scared of you." (He thinks he's funny.)
And then...
I'm reading my favorite online magazine, Inc. Magazine. The heading reads "2010: The Year in Bizarre HR" and of course I click on the link. It's 9 different stories about terminations or warnings to employees for "bizarre" reasons. And while it says "Bizarre HR" all I could really think was, "Bizarre Management". As far as I know, even if HR "approves" the action, the decision lies with senior management (at least it should).
Here's the article (it's quick and in a slide show format with the option for reading more for each story):
At the end of the day - there are usually three parts of a story - their side, your side and the part that isn't exaggerated. My point however - management needs be the ones seen responsible for termination decisions. A human resources department shouldn't be code for the "Place Blame Department" or the "Department of Bad Decisions". If managers really want their employees to follow protocol they have determined is important to the organization, it is their responsibility to make sure it is understood and interpreted the way they want it to. Buy-in is critical (this includes their OWN buy-in). And then of course, compassion is needed when managing to the policies. Policies should be flexible enough to be broken for the right reason.
If your intent is to implement a policy so you have the right to terminate someone - you're so not doing the managing - you're letting it be done for you.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Elevated HR Solutions: Think before you implement
Today, I had the huge honor of going to a company wide quarterly goal-setting meeting. Not only did they score themselves on the previous quarter's results, they set new targets and goals, with dates and deadlines to meet and hit. Really - it was an HR dream...
Two things came out of it for me:
1.) They make each other accountable for the goals that they set each quarter
2.) They aren't afraid to admit failure
I was in awe and delighted by the pragmatic and laser-like approach to the entire day-session. Yes - they spent a day developing new goals TOGETHER (as opposed to in silos like so many other companies I have been part of!)
The day also inspired the following...
Two goals were initiated by the operations/administrative department:
1.) The need for an employee handbook
2.) The need for a formalized performance appraisal system
While I applaud companies who try to be diligent around systems and processes, my question back to the team was simply, "Why do you want to formalize it? What is your end goal?" Surprisingly, the answer back came in the form of a question, "Because it seems like it's what you're supposed to do?"
It's true - as companies start to grow, it becomes easier to manage information and communication by implementing a process or a procedure. However, I encourage companies to ensure they know what the end result is supposed to look like before the decision is made to implement something.
So here are some questions to ask yourself and your team when deciding on whether or not to implement a new process or procedure: Will the entire management team buy in and commit to managing the same way? Does each department or manager NEED to follow the same process and procedure? Could this lead to more inequality down the road if there is a lack of buy in? Will it be seen as an administrative task or chore rather than something that leads to further development?
Personally - I'm a fan of policies and procedures and performance development...but it has to fit the organization, the culture and of course, it has to promote and support employee engagement. If it doesn't, then at the end of the day you will find employees and management alike breaking (or trying to) all of the rules and ultimately defeating the purpose entirely.
www.elevatedhr.com
Two things came out of it for me:
1.) They make each other accountable for the goals that they set each quarter
2.) They aren't afraid to admit failure
I was in awe and delighted by the pragmatic and laser-like approach to the entire day-session. Yes - they spent a day developing new goals TOGETHER (as opposed to in silos like so many other companies I have been part of!)
The day also inspired the following...
Two goals were initiated by the operations/administrative department:
1.) The need for an employee handbook
2.) The need for a formalized performance appraisal system
While I applaud companies who try to be diligent around systems and processes, my question back to the team was simply, "Why do you want to formalize it? What is your end goal?" Surprisingly, the answer back came in the form of a question, "Because it seems like it's what you're supposed to do?"
It's true - as companies start to grow, it becomes easier to manage information and communication by implementing a process or a procedure. However, I encourage companies to ensure they know what the end result is supposed to look like before the decision is made to implement something.
So here are some questions to ask yourself and your team when deciding on whether or not to implement a new process or procedure: Will the entire management team buy in and commit to managing the same way? Does each department or manager NEED to follow the same process and procedure? Could this lead to more inequality down the road if there is a lack of buy in? Will it be seen as an administrative task or chore rather than something that leads to further development?
Personally - I'm a fan of policies and procedures and performance development...but it has to fit the organization, the culture and of course, it has to promote and support employee engagement. If it doesn't, then at the end of the day you will find employees and management alike breaking (or trying to) all of the rules and ultimately defeating the purpose entirely.
www.elevatedhr.com
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Big Sigh! It's performance review time.
This morning I went to a networking meeting and a woman who was there promoting her business said she gave seminars on how to provide performance reviews, especially to generation X and Y. I'm always intrigued by those who say they "get" the new generation and "really know the secrets" of delivering/doing something because generation X and Y is so different than the rest of the generations. I guess when I say intrigued, I mean the little hairs stick up on the back of my neck and I immediately go into testing mode, to see if I'm in alignment with their thinking in general. Alright - I am slowly getting off topic here (Generation X and Y issues are probably an entire blog in itself never mind a post!) At any rate, the discussion that she lead this morning also got me thinking again about Performance Reviews in general.
I have worked with some pretty sophisticated software when it comes to Performance Management. At the end of the day (and I believe I've said this before), software is only ever as good as the user. My goal now, and while I was leading HR for a ton of different organizations, was to make the whole process simple and easy to use (otherwise managers wouldn't use it). For some reason, all organizations feel they need to have a section to rate behaviors or competencies like "team work" and then give it a score (usually based on a 1-5 scale). Our goal as HR was to get managers in alignment when it came to the scoring. But guess what? It was the proverbial sh*t show. And while I tried to pretend I couldn't understand why adults couldn't give feedback - I knew deep down, it had nothing to do with the feedback, but everything to do with the fact that you can't quantify competencies. People aren't made from the same cookie cutter - so to have the same rating scale is impossible.
I'll give you an example. Let's say one of the competencies you have to rate is "Integrity". You give your staff member a 3 because he/she meets your expectations when it comes to integrity. But on a scale of 1-5, how many of your staff members are actually going to be happy with a 3? Probably none. Then when they see their score, they are most likely going to ask you why you scored them a 3. Do you have an answer for them? What if they responded back to you and said, "Look, I have a ton of integrity. Everyone in the office steals office supplies and I choose not to." Sure - that could be considered integrity...but it's also what you expect of them. But when you ask them, "Do you report those who are stealing the supplies to management?" their answer most likely will be, "Of course not. It's not my place to rat out my colleagues." So really, do you now mark them a 2?? And you can see how this cycle could get out of control very quickly -- even when, as the experts say, you are "armed" with examples to "support your score".
So here's the question - should we even be rating employees on competencies that are clearly so open-ended? As said above, realistically no clear scoring system can ever be put in place because each person has their own thoughts and feelings when it comes to rating a particular behavior or competency. So in my opinion, it's an emphatic "NO!"
So then what should a performance review include? In my view (and I like simplicity) it's three basic sections - Strengths with commentary to provide praise and reinforcement for good behaviour and Areas for Improvement with an action plan on how they will improve. Finally, a note or two about what they need more of from you, their manager. Performance reviews don't need to be fancy or elaborate or cost you a ton of money by way of fancy software. All I recommend is to sit down formally, write down what you talked about and get a consensus on the items that need to be addressed. Finally, LISTEN when they ask you for help. If it's that simple - you'll find managers (or yourself) will want to do the process that much more often if you allow for it to be that simple!
I know I know...now many of you are going to start asking, "Well if I don't score their behaviors, how do I implement a bonus program? Or determine what their annual increase should be? I need something concrete." Really? You were going to give them a bonus based on being a good person (in other words, scoring a 5 on integrity)? If so, email me at michelleb@elevatedhr.com (we've got lots to talk about!) ;)
I have worked with some pretty sophisticated software when it comes to Performance Management. At the end of the day (and I believe I've said this before), software is only ever as good as the user. My goal now, and while I was leading HR for a ton of different organizations, was to make the whole process simple and easy to use (otherwise managers wouldn't use it). For some reason, all organizations feel they need to have a section to rate behaviors or competencies like "team work" and then give it a score (usually based on a 1-5 scale). Our goal as HR was to get managers in alignment when it came to the scoring. But guess what? It was the proverbial sh*t show. And while I tried to pretend I couldn't understand why adults couldn't give feedback - I knew deep down, it had nothing to do with the feedback, but everything to do with the fact that you can't quantify competencies. People aren't made from the same cookie cutter - so to have the same rating scale is impossible.
I'll give you an example. Let's say one of the competencies you have to rate is "Integrity". You give your staff member a 3 because he/she meets your expectations when it comes to integrity. But on a scale of 1-5, how many of your staff members are actually going to be happy with a 3? Probably none. Then when they see their score, they are most likely going to ask you why you scored them a 3. Do you have an answer for them? What if they responded back to you and said, "Look, I have a ton of integrity. Everyone in the office steals office supplies and I choose not to." Sure - that could be considered integrity...but it's also what you expect of them. But when you ask them, "Do you report those who are stealing the supplies to management?" their answer most likely will be, "Of course not. It's not my place to rat out my colleagues." So really, do you now mark them a 2?? And you can see how this cycle could get out of control very quickly -- even when, as the experts say, you are "armed" with examples to "support your score".
So here's the question - should we even be rating employees on competencies that are clearly so open-ended? As said above, realistically no clear scoring system can ever be put in place because each person has their own thoughts and feelings when it comes to rating a particular behavior or competency. So in my opinion, it's an emphatic "NO!"
So then what should a performance review include? In my view (and I like simplicity) it's three basic sections - Strengths with commentary to provide praise and reinforcement for good behaviour and Areas for Improvement with an action plan on how they will improve. Finally, a note or two about what they need more of from you, their manager. Performance reviews don't need to be fancy or elaborate or cost you a ton of money by way of fancy software. All I recommend is to sit down formally, write down what you talked about and get a consensus on the items that need to be addressed. Finally, LISTEN when they ask you for help. If it's that simple - you'll find managers (or yourself) will want to do the process that much more often if you allow for it to be that simple!
I know I know...now many of you are going to start asking, "Well if I don't score their behaviors, how do I implement a bonus program? Or determine what their annual increase should be? I need something concrete." Really? You were going to give them a bonus based on being a good person (in other words, scoring a 5 on integrity)? If so, email me at michelleb@elevatedhr.com (we've got lots to talk about!) ;)
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Considering a 360 Review? Here are a few tips!
A 360 Review is a powerful development tool and quite different to traditional manager-subordinate appraisals. As such a 360 process does not replace the traditional one-to-one process - it augments it, and should be used to support development.
360 degree reviews involve the reviewee receiving feedback from people (named or anonymous) whose views are considered helpful and relevant. The feedback is typically provided on a form showing job skills/abilities/attitudinal/behavioural criteria and some sort of scoring or value judgement system. The reviewee should also assess themselves using the same feedback instrument or form.
360 degree respondents can be the reviewee's peers, up-line managers/execs, subordinate staff, team members, other staff, customers, suppliers - anyone who comes into contact with the reviewee and has opinions/views/reactions of and to the reviewee. Numerous systems and providers are available - and all work well. However, as with any system - it's only as good as the user. Therefore, develop your tool in a word document first and foremost, decide how you want it to look and then decide if a system is right for you.
You can develop your own 360 degree feedback system by running a workshop (depending on extent and complexity of the required process) involving the reviewees during which process and materials can be created and drafted. The participative workshop approach will give you something that's wholly appropriate and 'owned' instead of something off-the-shelf or adapted, which could be arbitrary, and sometimes impracticable (in terms of criteria and process).
I would recommend against restricting the 360 feedback to peers and managers only – but in some cases, it’s the only choice you have. However, to use the feedback process for its fullest '360 degree' benefit involve customers, staff, suppliers, inspectors, contractors, and others for whom good working relationships and understanding with the reviewee affect overall job performance, quality, service, etc.
It is my view that no aspects of 360 feedback should ever be mandatory for any reviewee or respondent. Given more than three or four similar role-types being appraised it's not sensible to produce individually tailored criteria, in which case when it comes to the respondents completing the feedback not all the criteria will be applicable for all respondents, nor for all reviewees either. When designing the feedback instruments (whether hard-copy documents or online materials), it's useful to allow space for several 'other' aspects that the reviewee might wish to add to the standard criteria, and space for respondents to add 'other' comments. Open honest feedback can touch sensitivities, so be sure that reviewers understand and agree to the criteria, respondents (by type, if not named) and process.
Finally, the question as to anonymity of respondents is up to you. A grown-up organization with grown-up people should be able to cope with, and derive more benefit from, operating the process transparently - but you need to decide this. Some people are happier giving feedback anonymously. And some people are not able to deal particularly well with criticism from a named person. Either way pick what works best for you and your organization.
360 degree reviews involve the reviewee receiving feedback from people (named or anonymous) whose views are considered helpful and relevant. The feedback is typically provided on a form showing job skills/abilities/attitudinal/behavioural criteria and some sort of scoring or value judgement system. The reviewee should also assess themselves using the same feedback instrument or form.
360 degree respondents can be the reviewee's peers, up-line managers/execs, subordinate staff, team members, other staff, customers, suppliers - anyone who comes into contact with the reviewee and has opinions/views/reactions of and to the reviewee. Numerous systems and providers are available - and all work well. However, as with any system - it's only as good as the user. Therefore, develop your tool in a word document first and foremost, decide how you want it to look and then decide if a system is right for you.
You can develop your own 360 degree feedback system by running a workshop (depending on extent and complexity of the required process) involving the reviewees during which process and materials can be created and drafted. The participative workshop approach will give you something that's wholly appropriate and 'owned' instead of something off-the-shelf or adapted, which could be arbitrary, and sometimes impracticable (in terms of criteria and process).
I would recommend against restricting the 360 feedback to peers and managers only – but in some cases, it’s the only choice you have. However, to use the feedback process for its fullest '360 degree' benefit involve customers, staff, suppliers, inspectors, contractors, and others for whom good working relationships and understanding with the reviewee affect overall job performance, quality, service, etc.
It is my view that no aspects of 360 feedback should ever be mandatory for any reviewee or respondent. Given more than three or four similar role-types being appraised it's not sensible to produce individually tailored criteria, in which case when it comes to the respondents completing the feedback not all the criteria will be applicable for all respondents, nor for all reviewees either. When designing the feedback instruments (whether hard-copy documents or online materials), it's useful to allow space for several 'other' aspects that the reviewee might wish to add to the standard criteria, and space for respondents to add 'other' comments. Open honest feedback can touch sensitivities, so be sure that reviewers understand and agree to the criteria, respondents (by type, if not named) and process.
Finally, the question as to anonymity of respondents is up to you. A grown-up organization with grown-up people should be able to cope with, and derive more benefit from, operating the process transparently - but you need to decide this. Some people are happier giving feedback anonymously. And some people are not able to deal particularly well with criticism from a named person. Either way pick what works best for you and your organization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)