Discussion: View Thread

I would recommend Angelo de Nisi's work on performance appraisals  See for example:-   Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved. AS DeNisi, AN Kluger - Academy of Management Executive, 2000, for a good summary of what we know on 360 feedback  Angelo poses an interesting question. Why is it that most firms have performance review practices which ignore most of what we know about how to make them effective?  For example, we know that it is counterproductive to combine personal development uses and performance evaluation for pay/career uses of 360 feedback, but this is what many firms do. Consequently the games people play around optimising their feedback and their defensiveness about it prevents real learning.  Another issue, which is perhaps worth raising is that performance management approaches are highly culture bound and tied to the institutional structure of the societies in which they are embedded. The USA is highly individualistic and has a form of social and economic organisation which is highly market based. Other countries are more group oriented and/or practice forms of economic coordination which rely less strongly on the operation of markets including labour markets.  There is a good deal of research which suggests that US approaches to performance management do not transplant well into other social contexts. A good case study of such a failure is Lincoln Electric's disastrous  attempt to transplant its highly successful performance management approaches to Europe.  (Lincoln Electric's harsh lessons from international expansion DF Hastings - Harvard Business Review, 1999)    Prof. Mark Fenton-O'Creevy  Director, Programmes and Curriculum  & Professor of Organisational Behaviour Open University Business School  Walton Hall  Milton Keynes MK7 6AA  United Kingdom   Curriculum and Programmes e-mail: oubs-dir-pc@open.ac.uk  personal e-mail: m.p.fenton-ocreevy@open.ac.uk  (DL) +44 (0)1908-655804  Fax: +44 (0)1908-655898  Web : oubs.open.ac.uk      

----- Original Message -----

From: Lance Seberhagen

To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 9:00 AM

Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals

I'm new to the List but would like to add my $0.02.  One of the major problems in performance appraisal is that the supervisor/rater does not (for various reasons -- lack of time, training, etc.) observe the work of the subordinate/ratee in a systematic and detailed enough fashion to provide a sound factual basis upon which to make a reliable and valid rating.  One solution to this problem is to have the subordinate/ratee submit a monthly status report that describes work accomplishments, problems encountered, and help needed, along with a self-evaluation. This report motivates good performance, creates a vehicle for a constructive discussion of work performance with the supervisor, and provides the supervisor with a valuable source of performance data.  Of course, the supervisor/rater still needs to collect independent performance data, but the monthly status reports take much of the work load off of the supervisor.  Moreover, there should be no surprises when the supervisor sums everything up in the annual performance appraisal.

Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.
Seberhagen & Associates
9021 Trailridge Ct
Vienna, VA 22182
Tel 703-790-0796

 


M.P.Fenton-OCreevy wrote:

I would recommend Angelo de Nisi's work on performance appraisals  See for example:-   Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved. AS DeNisi, AN Kluger - Academy of Management Executive, 2000, for a good summary of what we know on 360 feedback  Angelo poses an interesting question. Why is it that most firms have performance review practices which ignore most of what we know about how to make them effective?  For example, we know that it is counterproductive to combine personal development uses and performance evaluation for pay/career uses of 360 feedback, but this is what many firms do. Consequently the games people play around optimising their feedback and their defensiveness about it prevents real learning.  Another issue, which is perhaps worth raising is that performance management approaches are highly culture bound and tied to the institutional structure of the societies in which they are embedded. The USA is highly individualistic and has a form of social and economic organisation which is highly market based. Other countries are more group oriented and/or practice forms of economic coordination which rely less strongly on the operation of markets including labour markets.  There is a good deal of research which suggests that US approaches to performance management do not transplant well into other social contexts. A good case study of such a failure is Lincoln Electric's disastrous  attempt to transplant its highly successful performance management approaches to Europe.  (Lincoln Electric's harsh lessons from international expansion DF Hastings - Harvard Business Review, 1999)    Prof. Mark Fenton-O'Creevy  Director, Programmes and Curriculum  & Professor of Organisational Behaviour Open University Business School  Walton Hall  Milton Keynes MK7 6AA  United Kingdom    Curriculum and Programmes e-mail: oubs-dir-pc@open.ac.uk  personal e-mail: m.p.fenton-ocreevy@open.ac.uk  (DL) +44 (0)1908-655804  Fax: +44 (0)1908-655898  Web : oubs.open.ac.uk       

CHEERS,
Jack D. Cerva
920-721-5486 ofc
920-540-5365 cell
People = Competitive Advantage

-----Original Message-----
From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Lance Seberhagen
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 11:01 AM
To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals

I'm new to the List but would like to add my $0.02.  One of the major problems in performance appraisal is that the supervisor/rater does not (for various reasons -- lack of time, training, etc.) observe the work of the subordinate/ratee in a systematic and detailed enough fashion to provide a sound factual basis upon which to make a reliable and valid rating.  One solution to this problem is to have the subordinate/ratee submit a monthly status report that describes work accomplishments, problems encountered, and help needed, along with a self-evaluation. This report motivates good performance, creates a vehicle for a constructive discussion of work performance with the supervisor, and provides the supervisor with a valuable source of performance data.  Of course, the supervisor/rater still needs to collect independent performance data, but the monthly status reports take much of the work load off of the supervisor.  Moreover, there should be no surprises when the supervisor sums everything up in the annual performance appraisal.

Lance Seberhagen, Ph.D.
Seberhagen & Associates
9021 Trailridge Ct
Vienna, VA 22182
Tel 703-790-0796

 


M.P.Fenton-OCreevy wrote:

I would recommend Angelo de Nisi's work on performance appraisals  See for example:-   Feedback effectiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved. AS DeNisi, AN Kluger - Academy of Management Executive, 2000, for a good summary of what we know on 360 feedback  Angelo poses an interesting question. Why is it that most firms have performance review practices which ignore most of what we know about how to make them effective?  For example, we know that it is counterproductive to combine personal development uses and performance evaluation for pay/career uses of 360 feedback, but this is what many firms do. Consequently the games people play around optimising their feedback and their defensiveness about it prevents real learning.  Another issue, which is perhaps worth raising is that performance management approaches are highly culture bound and tied to the institutional structure of the societies in which they are embedded. The USA is highly individualistic and has a form of social and economic organisation which is highly market based. Other countries are more group oriented and/or practice forms of economic coordination which rely less strongly on the operation of markets including labour markets.  There is a good deal of research which suggests that US approaches to performance management do not transplant well into other social contexts. A good case study of such a failure is Lincoln Electric's disastrous  attempt to transplant its highly successful performance management approaches to Europe.  (Lincoln Electric's harsh lessons from international expansion DF Hastings - Harvard Business Review, 1999)    Prof. Mark Fenton-O'Creevy  Director, Programmes and Curriculum  & Professor of Organisational Behaviour Open University Business School  Walton Hall  Milton Keynes MK7 6AA  United Kingdom    Curriculum and Programmes e-mail: oubs-dir-pc@open.ac.uk  personal e-mail: m.p.fenton-ocreevy@open.ac.uk  (DL) +44 (0)1908-655804  Fax: +44 (0)1908-655898  Web : oubs.open.ac.uk       

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
==============================================================================

Hi,

I am from India and I am new to this group.  Let me jump in to the fray anyway.  Let me first tell you all that this discussion is very stimulating.

I am wondering if this personal learning and drive that Tom is saying happens (or should happen as a result of the benchmarking)is moderated by the personality of the person. Depends on whether she has external locus of control or an internal locus of control.  The first set of people would blame the inhibiting circumtances external to the company (and even within the company) for the her poor performance or looks for facilitating factors for the top guy's performance and then says "Well, my performance is okay, the star's performance was that good because he got a good territory" or "I could not make the levels this year because Katrina hit". For the next year, she does not expect Katrina and therefore hopes to get by with the same efforts.

Rationalisation is possible because, in actual practice, rarely do the extreme end of the scales get used. The tendency is for most people to be marked off at 3 or 4 and very few get a 2 or 5 and no one gets a 1.
One is able to "explain" the "small" difference rather easily?

It is a different matter that these guys get fired or pushed out of the way for promotions after a couple of years of average performance.  But by that time the damage is done that the average guy has become rigidfied to be an averager for life.  Companies rarely fire the middling guys?

Is what I am talking cultural dependent?

Regards: Bala


On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 Thomas Sigerstad wrote :
>Gary,
>First, I'm not touting any kind of theory to support a position here but merely reflecting how I see practice; but let me take a stab at answering the second round of questions:
>
>snip: Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance appraisal as
>helping to drive future performance for the organization?  I recognize that this
>is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control movement, but
>how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a benchmark help
>in improving future employee performance?
>
>I honestly think is pretty straightforward in that people want to know where they stand and where they are expected to go.  Most organizations are pretty close mouthed about rankings, keeping members in the dark about who is above and below them but some informal mechanisms reveal some of this.  The benchmarking then is to a scale that organizations use to justify salary differentials and promotion.  I don't plan on arguing the good or bad in this...I think that it just reflects what goes on.  On a typical scale of 1-5 organizations rate various performance categories and the appraisal recipient sees where they fall and either knows expectation levels or is told what they are.  If I know I'm a "3" and am getting a mediocre raise and no promotion wouldn't I be driven to exceed my current level of performance to achieve a "4" and get a bigger raise and possibly the promotion?  Don't I want to be in the group of employees being considered for advancement?  We all like to know where we stand and why?  We also all want to know what is expected of us to achieve appropriate performance appraisals.  I don't think this sounds elegant, and it won't close any consulting contract deals, but it seems an awfully lot like common sense to me as a practitioner that if I'm benchmarked in the middle of the pack and don't want to be there I only have a single choice assuming I am interested in more of whatever drives me.  That choice is to improve my rating in the next benchmarking exercise or before.  There are of course much more meaningful, insightful, and helpful ways to go beyond mere benchmarking with the employee to inform them of where they stand and why, as well as where they are expected to go, and why, and how.  Better managers would layer on these additional methods to the basic benchmarking exercise, although I think they might do it selectively dependent on who they want to invest in.  In any traditional benchmarking exercise I think the benchmarkers might also explain how/why an organization is at a particular place, and how they can move beyond it.  Benchmarking answers the question "How am I doing?"  Assuming I, or we, want to do better, we seek out the answers (or give them) to explain why we are there and what we have to do to move beyond.
>
>snip: Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels be at the
>beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it?  Also, shouldn't
>the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of the employee,
>rather than in the measurement of performance, itself?  After all, shouldn't the
>focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on the progress
>in improvement over the benchmark?
>
>Isn't the end of one period the beginning of another?  (Except for a new employee who I might not know very much about.)  I would think that the benchmark taken at the end of some period becomes the starting place in that conversation about how we got there and how to move forward.  The beginning benchmark can lead to "budgeted" performance much like a budget acts as a managerial tool after last year's results are in and we figure out what we want to expect from ourselves for the next year.  You are absolutely on the same wavelength I am about the benchmark being capable of more than a mere measurement of performance.  It can be the starting place for "budgeting" new performance, setting some goals and objectives.  I think people need to see where they are to get a handle on where they are going and how to get there.  As an appraised individual I hated conversations that discussed open ended performance expectations like "I'm looking for improvement" or "I expect you to excel."  Improve over what?  Define excel with some point of reference.  The "what" and the "point of reference" are the benchmark.  To answer the second part...I don't think you can focus solely on development unless you can anchor "develop from where", else we have a wall of framed platitudes and no specifics.  Employees don't want to hear "when the going gets tough, the tough get going".  They want to know that they closed 10% of their leads and the top salesperson closed 15%.  Then they want to know how to get there.  Where do I stand?  How do I improve?  Then the sales manager jumps in with the necessary developmental tools.  Focus on the goal, or focus on improvement from the benchmark?  Good question...perhaps some of both.  The goal for the end of the period may be the benchmark measured at period end and we hope they turn out to be the same.  I reported to a CEO once who always had "stretch" goals but was pretty darn happy when the troops had a respectable gain over last year's benchmark.  This opens the question of whether we develop goals/budgets based on improvement over the benchmark (e.g.; year to year unit sales gains) or use goals/budgets to push performance to new levels.  I think we tend to some of both philosophies in practice, or dependent on managerial style.  That CEO was a "coach" trying to make us all dig deep for the game.  The real budget that the Wall Street analysts saw (admittedly somewhat safe but still giving them gains) was a performance over a previous benchmark.
>
>snip: As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems from the
>research I've read that there is no connection.  Yes, recognition does have a
>connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give someone
>recognition for a job well done?
>
>I don't pretend to be up on the latest research in the HR domains so I can't comment directly on what the variables are and how they are measured, or whether they have statistical, but as importantly, practical significance.  I would think that we do benchmarks for a reason, to position ourselves vis a vis something else that has meaning to us.  Once we know that, do we, and how do we become "engaged" to act on that position knowledge?  I've seen plenty of companies do research and not act on it.  That's the failure.  But, isn't the action, when it happens, engagement?  Perhaps I don't know enough about how that term is used or measured in the field.  More basic question: If we want to give someone recognition for a job well done, what is the criteria for making that judgment?  Haven't we compared them against something?  Anything?  I'll bet sometimes we compare it to improvements, sometimes goals, sometimes attitude.  Sometimes we reward failure because we want to encourage risk taking where neither the benchmark or goal is the criterion as much as the actions, but then perhaps we are measuring something else which turned out to be the measure we used in that case.
>
>Gary, I'm trying to simplify a portion of a very complex system of training and development, and human motivation.  I believe a simple phenomenon of measuring current performance at some point in time (which I am calling benchmarking) gives "people developers" an anchor to help explain where people are and show them where the developer would like them to go.  I want to know where I'm at, and where I'm expected to go from there.  I can't tell my students any more than I could once tell my employees that if they work hard I'll give them an "A" or the biggest raise.  If I'm arbitrary I'm in trouble in both camps.  They want anchors and scales.  If I tell them where they stand at some point in time and they don't like it, they "engage".  That occurs in various forms.
>
>One more exchange and I think we have enough for a paper (chuckle).
>
>Tom
>
>Thomas D. Sigerstad, MBA, PhD
>Strategic Management and Business Ethics
>326 Framptom Hall
>College of Business
>Frostburg State University
>101 Braddock Road
>Frostburg, MD 21532
>tsigerstad@frostburg.edu
>301-687-4419 office
>301-687-4380 fax
>301-687-0712 home
>
>________________________________
>
> From: Management Education and Development Discussion on behalf of Gary Lear
>Sent: Sun 10/2/2005 7:39 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>Subject: Re: "Socking it to 'em" via performance appraisals
>
>
>
>Tom,
>
>Can you explain to me how you see benchmarking via a performance appraisal as
>helping to drive future performance for the organization?  I recognize that this
>is a commonly touted approach from the statistical process control movement, but
>how does the appraisal of this past performance and using it as a benchmark help
>in improving future employee performance?
>
>Another thought: wouldn't the time to benchmark performance levels be at the
>beginning of the "review period" rather than at the end of it?  Also, shouldn't
>the use of this benchmarking be used solely in the development of the employee,
>rather than in the measurement of performance, itself?  After all, shouldn't the
>focus on measurement be on the goal to be obtained, rather than on the progress
>in improvement over the benchmark?
>
>As for the issue regarding benchmarking and engagement, it seems from the
>research I've read that there is no connection.  Yes, recognition does have a
>connection, but do we need a benchmark in order for us to give someone
>recognition for a job well done?
>
>Make a Great Day!
>
>Gary Lear, President & CEO
>
>Resource Development Systems LLC
>Managing the Human Side of Business (sm)
>
>www.ResourceDevelopmentSystems.com
>
>(c) 2005 permission denied to use this post in any other forum or in any way
>other than on the discussion list that it was originally posted.