I agree that the weighting of 60%/40% is arbitrary - but the numbers are not
as important as the concept - that the 'soft skills', those that the
individual takes with them wherever they go, are crucial to managing in the
changing, complex organisations of tomorrow (and often today) and having
employees who are ready for what the business is becoming, not just what it
is currently. Measuring performance by achievement of 'results', whatever
the measurement, is always looking backwards. Nothing wrong with it -
paying for it may even push people further, but developing personal
abilities is a forward approach and some organisations are beginning to pay
for that too.
I don't think control has anything to do with it.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Constantine <
rainbird@TRAIL.COM>
To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU <
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Date: 18 October 1997 12.02
Subject: Re: Evaluating management training
>When it comes to evaluating performance of individuals, I would
>hesitate to draw conclusions when one admits to using weighting
>factors which place a nominal 60% on "soft" skills, and 40% on
>"results", or in fact any such subjective/objective mix. Moreover,
>when the truth be told, all performance takes place in an
>environment which, if operating under statistical control, is a
>"random-based" environment; this means that while you may think
>you have the metrics to prove/disprove what it is you are
>evaluating, unless you have taken the "reported" evidence and
>applied proper statistical analysis to it, you have done nothing
>more than "tampered" with the evidence, and proven nothing.
>
>Let's say you are operating a retail establishment and you have
>been basing your evaluation on your employees' sales figures for
>the last month. What part does the system play in the figures?
>(The system meaning the facility, the stock on hand, the lighting,
>the time of year, the POS system, the day of the week, etc, etc.)
>And, what part does the individual play in the figures? And, what
>part does the relationship of the two play?
>
>In dealing with performance issues, it seems common to say that if
>one desires specificity, the utility of the metric becomes
>meaningless; all else is subjective and often innacurate due to
>many reasons - personalities, biases of one type or another, age,
>perceptions of roles, etc, etc. Often the most important aspects
>regarding performance are unknown and unknowable, since they are
>personal and inter-personal.
>
>It is perhaps falling back on the need to feel that one has
>"control" of what another is doing or has done, when we seek to
>evaluate performance of any kind, much less management training.
>When the purpose is clear, the roles understood, and the emphasis
>away from control and on to removing barriers, then such concepts
>as "evaluations" become increasingly meaningless and
>counter-productive.
>
>Jessica Levant wrote:
>>
>> As a strong supporter of 360 degree feedback, I would add the following
>> proviso when it is used as part of work assessment. (The key word here
is
>> 'part'.) You are right that this form of assessment can't tap the
>> performance of the job itself, but it can - in my view better than any
other
>> means - assess the 'how' of the performance. In other words, how people
>> perceive the visible interpersonal actions of this individual in the
course
>> of his or her work is valid data. A model that seemed to work well with
one
>> organisation I know is weighting 60% for 'soft skills' assessment
(perceptin
>> via 360 is used here) and 40% for hitting targets and other 'results'
>> areas - factual information available to individual and manager used
here.
>>
>> It's the 60% areas that will help the individual move on to other tasks
and
>> responsibilities and remain marketable and employable in the future.
>>
>> Maybe that rounds out the discussion a bit.
>>
>> Jess Levant
>> The Pennybank Partnership, London
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: robnphil <
robnphil@OZEMAIL.COM.AU>
>> To:
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU <
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>> Date: 18 October 1997 12.09
>> Subject: Re: Evaluating management training
>>
>> >> In a message dated 10/13/97 11:39:35 AM, R. Clinton Young wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <<What advice might you have to help this type of learner appreciate
>> (rather
>> >> quickly) the use of newly learned management skills? What type of
>> >> measurement process could help them and us to gauge the worth of
>> >> implementation of these skills?>>
>> >>
>> >I picked this message up from another reply and somehow missed the
>> >original therefore I'm not sure whether or not my reply is going to be
>> >of help. Nevertheless.....
>> >
>> >There has been a lot said about such assessment tools as 360 degree
>> >assessment etc where a group are asked evaluate and rate the worth of an
>> >individual's performance. In my experience, if those doing the
>> >assessment are not privy to the full range of skills and knowledge that
>> >person must implement, and the environment or context in which he/she is
>> >expected to implement them, then there is no way a fair, valid or
>> >reliable assessment can be made. Only personal opinion and often tainted
>> >with unfulfilled expectations and personal bias.
>> >
>> >The truth of the matter is that there is no way in which an individual's
>> >worth can be measured without looking at the worth of the function in
>> >which the individual fills. What is the worth of this function to the
>> >organisation (in dollar, productivity percentage [including the
>> >productivity of others], control of loss, or resource usage terms) and
>> >this is most often only a subjective guess.
>> >
>> >An organisation is the sum total of the individuals. Measurement of it
>> >is carried out at a number of levels - not just by those who work with
>> >or for this individual but buy the degree of influence that individual
>> >has on them, on the branch/section in which he/she works, on the output
>> >of that branch/section or the division/company as a whole, and on the
>> >way in which the organisation itself is viewed for it's utility and
>> >impact on the environment or community in which it is found.
>> >
>> >I have attached a model that I have found most useful when talking to
>> >management and staff about where and how individual skills and knowledge
>> >can be evaluated and assessed. If anyone wants more information please
>> >feel free to give me a yell on email.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Regards
>> >
>> >PHIL RUTHERFORD
>> >
>
>--
>========================================================
>
>Sincerely,
>
>John Constantine
>Rainbird Management Consulting
>PO Box 23554
>Santa Fe, NM 87502-3554
>
Rainbird@Trail.Com
>http:\\www.trail.com\~rainbird