After reading my last blog on Performance Evaluations, one of my blog followers suggested that I address the real purpose behind performance evaluation—i.e., the continuous improvement and development of the employee. His suggestion was spot on!
In the Performance Evaluation blog, my objective was to share with the employee an approach that might be useful and effective in dealing with the boss. My observations and suggestions in that blog dealt more with mental preparation and positioning perspectives that might be helpful to the employee. However, now, it is time to delve into the real aims and objectives of the performance evaluation process.
Contrary to popular belief, performance evaluation is not, necessarily, designed to prune your organization of the lowest performing employees. Its primary purpose is not to “rank and yank”. Sure enough, one of the outcomes of a well designed performance management system is the forced ranking of employees based on their ‘body of work’. Still, the primary objective, I would submit, of a well designed and implemented Performance Management system is to ensure the continual development of the organization’s human capital—their people. That’s right; development should be intentional—not incidental.
If you are ever close enough to HR professionals, you will hear them spout the three words that summarize their key organizational helping tasks—Attract, Develop and Retain [ADR] talent. If these three tasks are done well, the organization should be positioned to meet current and future business challenges with the appropriate number, type and caliber of talent. Note, that I said these are key helping tasks that HR is essentially measured against when determining the function’s effectiveness. In fact, HR is just one of the partners in Attracting, Developing and Retaining employees. In reality, the organization, the boss, and HR must function together to achieve a competitive advantage leveraging ADR goals. Under Developing employees, the boss must take the lead. The boss must understand the old adage that “people join a company and quit a boss” is more than just a turn of a phrase—its reality.
Now, we come to the real purpose of performance appraisals/evaluations. First and foremost, the boss must be held responsible for observing and appraising for the purpose of developing the employee. No employee comes into the job-no matter how gifted and/or talented- fully up to speed. There are new expectations, people and technical competencies that must be introduced, understood and then mastered. The boss is responsible for guiding the employee through this evolution. Ongoing feedback, formal evaluations and on-the-job training are the tools the boss must use to achieve this goal of employee development. To be effective at developing the employee, the boss must be an open and honest communicator of both compliments and constructive criticism.
Remember, I said in the last blog that performance evaluations/appraisals should be viewed as development opportunities—not definitive events. Unfortunately, too many bosses are cowards when it comes to “shooting straight” with the employee. They tell HR, their colleagues and even some other direct reports how they really feel about a certain direct report; they often speak in vague and nebulous terms and/or use parables that can be interpreted any number of ways by the employee. They are cowards, because, when given the opportunity to give direct and honest feedback to the employee in question, they become ‘mush mouthed’. Sure, its tough to sit across from a person who is coiled, anxious and worried about getting a ‘bad evaluation’. But, hey sports fans, the employee deserves to hear what he/she needs to do to get better.
Hiding behind vague and overused labels like “not strategic enough”, “lacks fire in the belly”, “needs to drive more for results” is a cop-out, pure and simple. Of course, share the What they are lacking—but, hasten to add the How they can improve addendum. Development of employees, therefore, should be 'Job #1' for the boss. Failure to develop employees who have capabilities and show a desire to improve should reflect poorly on the boss in question. Employees are not disposable units. They are organizational assets that must be managed as such. If the Plant Manager was not using the maintenance function and throwing out equipment because of occasional malfunctions, somebody in HQ would want to talk to him/her-right away! Far too many so-called supervisor default to the HR function to handle [dispose of] the failed employee who has not been developed [not maintained].
By the way, this is why in so many organizations HR has earned the rap of being the ‘hatchet men/women’. In any organization where the HR function has this rap it, most likely, deserves it.
No comments:
Post a Comment