Geoff and others following this link,
Your comments raise a number of points which I'd like to address in the body of
your message:
Geoff Atkinson wrote:
> Can we explore this a bit further? Yes, the role of the manager in the
> traditional organisation has included controlling the feedback used by the
> organisation in determining pay, progression and so on.
>
> Increasingly though this is not the case. Organisations with largely project
> based work (such as consultancies, many IT/IS departments) are finding that
> one manager just does not have the data with which to work - unlike their
> traditional role of monitoring the work while it was being done.
>
Our research has found that the role of management in a project based
organisation has indeed changed - so much so that the traditional manager is
finding it hard to exist when trying to manage a range of project teams using
the traditional management approach. There are newly identified competencies for
this level of management that moves the traditional manager sideways out of
generic management and into the role of manager of a business program, one step
below business and strategic management. As a result, information needs have
changed as well. You are right, the traditional processes don't work very well
any more.
> Even more stable organisations are recognising that at least the change
> delivery part of their operation needs to be organised on a project basis.
>
This has more to do with middle-management being wiped out in erroneous 'down
sizing' or 'right sizing' experiments at BPR. As a consequence so much of middle
management's traditional function is now performed by project teams. And they
are doing so very effectively.
> In the project based parts, an individual may have a number of different
> managers for the work s/he has done in a period under review (the project
> managers), and would probably have one person (often called a skills or
> resource group manager) who would be responsible for ensuring personal
> development, and for representing their career development aspirations.
>
Not according to the work we do. The project manager, in a matrix type
organisation, works across a range of hierarchical functions and has just as
much to do with team development as does the functional manager. But, this
development is in relation to what the project team is doing - not to the
individual's responsibilities towards the functional manager. Here is where the
functional and the project manager work very closely together - well, they
should anyway. Reality is that the project manager is generally quite junior to
the functional manager and, as the team member is being appraised (for pay,
reward, career, promotion etc) by the functional manager that is where his/her
first loyalties generally lay. This is a constraint that project managers all
round the world have to work around. I've known a lot of project team members
who aren't all that concerned about feedback received as a result of their work
in the project, but give them a positive rap which goes on their record and most
of them are 'over the moon'.
The point is that both managers require information but for two different
purposes.
> The 360 issue then becomes one of data ownership, and there are two possible
> owners - "the individual" and "the organisation". If I am working in such a
> structure, I may want the broadest possible input into the data owned by the
> organisation. Then for me to take the initiative to gather 360 data and
> include it as my offering seems to me entirely within my rights.
>
Can't argue with that.
> The big question is not whether the 360 data should be included in an
> "appraisal" - in some organisations that involves a simple 1-5 score,
Only in the less than effective organisations is this a 1-5 score. Having such
an appraisal process has, traditionally, brought out the laziness in managers
who simply take the appraisal forms home one night, tick the centre 'average'
box (because it takes away their responsibility to make real decisions and keeps
staff happy), and bring the forms back in the next day. In the most successful
organisations I've worked with they've done away with this altogether.
> in others it is an entirely self managed activity with a solely development
> output. It is rather whether the 360 data should be passed to the
> organisation, in which case it will inevitably be used as one of the inputs
> to pay and progression discussions.
>
Maybe it is the colonialist in me coming out but I know of few people who would
be happy undergoing a 360 degree appraisal for the purpose of pay and career
progression. Perhaps in some soviet type communities where group discipline is
the norm, but not in a society where real issues tend to cloud personal opinion
- and whether or not someone is 'liked' sometimes overshadows perceived or real
competence.Besides, liking someone as they now are says very little about their
future capability. My staff might find me a jolly fellow now, but what about
tomorrow when I have to lay some of the off? My senior executive might not
really like me today (but, why should they?) but tomorrow I'm their favourite
hero.
> No of course people should not be forced to accept feedback - but shouldn't
> they be allowed to?
>
If it is their choice and, in my opinion, purely for personal development and
growth within that team's setting. I have worked in organisations where I've had
brilliant appraisals from some very hard task masters, and had bad appraisals
from people I considered pussy cats. A statistician would therefore say that, as
a result of this, I was average, but what is the truth? I don't know because
both groups used different criteria - their own personal feelings. They can't be
faulted for doing this, but personal feelings rarely measure competence - only
the way someone feels about you on a given day at a given time and under given
circumstances. The next day these may be totally different.
Just a few thoughts.
Phil Rutherford
Competency-based systems specialist
robnphil@ozemail.com.au