Weekly eNewsletter
Sign Up for Your Free CorpU Weekly eNewsletter
|
|
Sue Todd Commentary |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 2
As organizations move toward adopting a single, enterprise-wide performance management process, they find little challenge implementing it. However, they also recognize that real value only comes if managers and employees embrace its full intent by engaging in dialogs, feedback and support that leads to reaching and exceeding goals.
Organizations who believe they are doing performance management well and say they have the business results to validate their assessment are convinced that they have mastered the process and are now focused on improving the ability of managers to coach to higher levels of performance. They provide managers with training, tools and practice to remove barriers to great performance, to facilitate development opportunities that stretch people to higher levels of performance, and to offer candid feedback to low performers, albeit with less bite and showmanship than Simon Cowell.
Execution is the “mantra” of great business performance and means paying attention to the small details of what to do and how to get it done. Performance management undoubtedly offers the newest, best method for seeing and managing day-to-day execution at every organization level.
Organizations realize that ratings are necessary to document employee performance and success. However, they recognize that the following biases can show up in rating processes:
-
Leniency Error – manager gives generous ratings to preserve a good working relationship
-
Severity Error – manager rates too severely possibly because he has received a poor rating
-
Central Tendency – reflects a pre-disposition to cluster people near the middle
-
Halo and Horn Error – managers carry over a perception of a strength (halo) or weakness (horn) in rating one dimension of performance to other dimensions
-
Recency Error – manager’s assessment of performance is based on an employee’s most recent accomplishments or failures
-
Fundamental Attribution Error – managers assess their own performance as being the result of hard work or keen decision-making while attributing the success of others to luck or external factors
-
Self-serving Bias – managers inflate ratings to make themselves look good
Organizations that have been perfecting their performance rating activities say a critical factor of success is to keep the rating scheme simple and to provide frequent training to managers on how to conduct effective coaching and feedback sessions in driving to a fair rating outcome. As all note, the rating process is ultimately less important than meaningful interactions between managers and employees aimed at working together to overcome barriers and develop needed knowledge and skills that will lead to higher levels of performance.
One person has commented on this article. (1) IQPC Exchange
2008-05-31 00:59:00 This is an excellent piece describing the symptomatic issues with the at times tough issues of effectively appraising a performaance whilst maitaining and improving that performance (and that working relationship). My most relevant experience of seeing this in practice is within the ABCA Defence Forces (particualrly Army) have developed some very robust systems for personnel, whithout necessarily eliminating most of these biases.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
|
|
