Performance Management
DEVELOPED BY JCM CONSULTING INC. © Clyde Johnson 1986, 89, 93, 94, 97, 98
Problem Developing Your Own Program? ä Managers would rather do nothing ä They may want a system as close to nothing as they can find ä Give managers what they need and should have, not what they think they want ä Designers may list objectivity at he bottom of the wish list ä You should not compare features of other programs if the paradigm does not make sense
TO LET EMPLOYEE KNOW WHERE THEY STAND TO BASE PERSONNEL DECISIONS ON PERFORMANCE CRITERIA TO STRENGTHEN THE ORGANIZATION'S LEGAL POSITION TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE Why Evaluate Performance....
ä INADEQUATELY DEFINED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE ä OVEREMPHASIS ON VERY RECENT OR DISTANT PERIODS OF PERFORMANCE ä RELIANCE ON GUT FEELING ä NO TIME OR FORMAT FOR DISCUSSION BETWEEN EMPLOYEE & SUPERVISOR ä LACK OF FOLLOW-UP PLAN COMMON ERRORS....
Choose Evaluation Paradigm ä Fluff ä Forced Ranking ä Objective Bars ä Compromised Bars
Fluff ä Essay ä No real standards ä Same words for all jobs with same factor ä Poor or No weighting concept ä Some but not all 360 Evaluations ä Peer Group evaluation
Irrelevant Objectives ä Employee determines objectives ä May related to a completely different job ä May be counterproductive ä Objectives should be related to performance factors (components)
Forced Ranking ä Who do you want in the life boat ä Fire the bottom 10% ä Major Lawsuits ä Ford ä Conoco ä Microsoft
B A R S ä Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales ä Define of performance for each factor ä Describe performance for each level ä Ideally there should be five levels of performance ä Could use different verbiage for each job ä You can change wording to meet current needs without effecting past records
Compromised Bars ä Compromised BARS system ä The description for factors same for all jobs ä Can rate between factor levels with no description of the level of performance. ä Compare rating to other employees ä Objectives separate from performance factors ä Weighting by elimination ä Does not include all job performance factors ä Why not use just one factor?
Constructive Dismissal ä Keep secret notes ä Negative actions are recorded ä All comments should be viewed by the employee ä At the time of the incident ä At evaluation time
Objective Vs Subjective ä Standards ä Employee Involvement ä Known to new employees ä Relative Weighting ä Employee Input ä Open System ä Employee Access ä Significant Incident ä Progress of Specific Goals & Objectives ä Measure Performance Data ä Tie actual performance data to performance standards
ä ESSAY ä PEER RANKING OR PEER EVALUATION ä 360 DEGREE EVALUATIONS ä MULTIPLE EVALUATORS ä TRAIT (BEHAVIORS) ä QUANTIFIED FACTORS ä PRE-DEFINED STANDARDS (BARS) ä GOALS/OBJECTIVE SETTING ä RELATIVE WEIGHTING ä RANKING EVALUATION TECHNIQUES..
HOW SHOULD IT WORK... l MULTIPLE EVALUATION TECHNIQUES l EMPLOYEE/SUPERVISORY OWNERSHIP l SETTING THE PARAMETERS l EVALUATION l JOB RELATED l FACTORS ARE WEIGHTED FOR EACH JOB CATEGORY l STANDARDS ARE TAILORED FOR EACH JOB CATEGORY l ONGOING PROCESS
WHO SHOULD EVALUATE... l PRINCIPALS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS l IMMEDIATE SUPERVISORS l EMPLOYEE SELF-EVALUATION l MULTIPLE EVALUATORS l GROUP MEETING l AVERAGING
HOW OFTEN..... l AT LEAST ANNUALLY l AT THE END OF THE FIRST 90 DAY PERIOD l SUPPLEMENTED WITH OPTIONAL ACTIONS TO MAKE THE PROCESS ONGOING l SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS l GOALS/OBJECTIVES l QUANTITY DATA
FAIRNESS AND EQUITY... l FACTORS SHOULD BE WEIGHTED AND STANDARDS TAILORED FOR EACH JOB CATEGORY l EMPLOYEES AND SUPERVISORS ARE INVOLVED IN: l SETTING THE PARAMETERS l EVALUATING l SUPERVISOR'S RATINGS CHECKED FOR: l CONSISTENCY l FAIRNESS l SUPERVISOR/EMPLOYEE INTERACTIONS FACILITATED l ONGOING EVALUATION PROCESS
LEGAL VULNERABILITIES... l JOB RELATED l EMPLOYEE SIGN-OFF OF FACTORS, WEIGHTING, AND STANDARDS l INFORMAL "LEGAL" EVALUATIONS
ADVANCED PROCESS... PERFORMANCE FACTORS LINKED TO S I R Significant Incident Records S P O Specific Performance Objectives/Goals Quantified Data
Enter Specific Performance Objectives S P O Check for rater bias Printout & Review Performance Report With Employees Enter Significant Incidents S I R Tie pay to performance Enter Quantity Data A S D Set goals and objectives S P O Evaluate Performance Create Job Categories Select and Define Standards Set Job Values Flow Chart Enter Employee Data & Map Management Relationship
PLANNING... ä SELECT RELEVANT FACTORS ä DETERMINE RELATIVE WEIGHT OF FACTORS ä ESTABLISH STANDARDS ä QUANTIFY FACTORS WHERE POSSIBLE ä ESTABLISH LEVEL DEFINITIONS OF OTHERS
ä LINKED TO INDIVIDUAL FACTORS ä ENTER ONLINE OR MANUAL FORM ä ON-SITE EVALUATION OF INCIDENT IN TERMS OF FACTORS ä EMPLOYEE SIGN-OFF ä EMPLOYEE RETAINS A COPY ä SUMMARY IS USED IN PERIODIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION S I R SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT RECORD
ä LINKED TO INDIVIDUAL FACTORS ä FRAMEWORK FOR EMPLOYEE GOALS ä ENTER ONLINE OR MANUAL FORM ä DESIRED OUTCOMES DESCRIBED ä USED AS PART OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS TO DETERMINE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE ä USED DURING PERFORMANCE REVIEW TO INDICATE SPECIFICALLY THE ACTION NEEDED TO REACH A HIGHER LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE FOR A SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE FACTOR S P O Specific Performance Objective
A Snapshot of performance linked to individual factors Conduct on a pre-agreed time table Series of positive bias questions Data entered into PEP program Results used in the periodic evaluation of quantified factors SURVEY
Quantity Lit
SIR Lit
SPO Lit
ä Overall Score ä Percent of perfect ä One to five ä Blueprint for improvement ä Success Factors ä Employee needs ä Notes Report
Page 3 top
ä POSITIVE LENIENCY ä BASED ON EXPECTATIONS ä NEGATIVE LENIENCY ä NOBODY IS PERFECT ä CENTRAL TENDENCY ä TO AVOID EXTREME POSITIONS ä HORNS/HALO EFFECT ä A SINGLE TRAIT EFFECTS RATER'S JUDGEMENT ä WEAK TEAM MEMBERSHIP ä ENDS UP WITH LOWER RATING ä EFFECT OF PAST RECORD ä WORK TENDS TO CARRY OVER INTO LATER PERIODS WHAT IS RATER BIAS....
ä FRONT-END PLANNING ä MULTIPLE EVALUATION TECHNIQUES ä SUPERVISOR/EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT ä JOB RELATED FACTORS ä FACTORS, WEIGHTS, AND STANDARDS TAILORED FOR EACH JOB CLASSIFICATION ä QUANTIFYING FACTORS ä EMPLOYEE SIGN-OFF ON JOB PARAMETERS ä COMPUTERS USED TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS ä REPORTS GENERATED TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING SUMMARY.....
CALL FOR MORE INFORMATION SUCCESS... ReferenceSn yderville.pdfSn yderville.pdf