A short history of Performance Management
Appraisal systems have been around since the industrial revolution when they were used to measure the production of a workforce. There were clear definable objectives, produce x number of widgets by Friday, they were by default ‘SMART’ and very much tied reward as the workers salary was often based upon weekly production.
In today’s service economy the connection of objectives to production starts to look a little bizarre as often there is no direct connection between service delivery and effort required to produce it. For example software development is not based upon the number of lines of code produced but on the quality of the finished product, sales are rarely based upon the number of calls made but more likely on the relationship between the salesman and the customer, and the quality of material produced by a marketing professional will be almost impossible to quantify.
So Why Do We Still Have Goal Based Appraisal Systems?
This is mostly due to work conducted in the 1950’s and 1960’s around the area of objectives. Research was done into the effectiveness of objectives on individual performance and it was found that by allowing individuals to set Specific, Measurable and Realistic goals that were possible to Achieve and had a Time limit imposed upon them then the chances are they would perform better than being given less defined sets of objectives.
Much of this work was done in the Psychology lab and involved highly motivated research students. Although this work has been validated in real life the results are not as clear cut as were originally thought and a number of other variables were found that appear to have been left off of the list
Appraisal Systems – Where Does it All Go Wrong?
So, we have a measurement system based upon 19th century innovation in mass production and a goal setting mechanism based upon 1950’s psychology research, not a particularly good start. So what’s left? There are a whole range of issues around the appraisal process which also need to be considered, the top concerns are:
1. Halo and Horns – This is something often mentioned in literature regarding job interviews but appears to be completely ignored when appraisal time comes around. The Halo and Horns effect is the appraisers personal view of the appraised based not upon cold hard facts but on the unconscious internal appraisal by the appraiser. Two individuals both with exactly the same production record can be given widely varying reviews based upon the perception of the reviewer skewing the results in favour of a particular personality type.
2. Good cop/Bad cop – The quality of an appraisal system depends heavily upon the consistency of the reviewers. In an ideal situation all individuals within an organisation will be reviewed by one individual, however in anything but the smallest business this is impractical and you are left with the impact of human variance.
3. Hearsay or Heresy – One of the biggest issues in large organisations is history, not of the company although that is important, but of the individual and like all histories it is written by the winners and not the losers. In an appraisal situation the history created around an individual can be very destructive and will influence the Halo and Horns effect.
4. Voter Apathy – When the psychological work on objective setting was done in the 1950’s and 1960’s it was based upon the study of conscientious and motivated individuals. The later work on objectives in the organisations highlighted as one of the critical issues (and one that has been largely ignored) of the enthusiasm and motivation of the staff for the appraisal system itself. The concept of buy-in is an important one and one that is often overlooked by corporations introducing review systems. The staff being reviewed must agree with the process and accept it as useful otherwise the impact of any review will be of little use.
5. R.E.S.P.E.C.T – This is a reversal of the Halo and Horns effect in that this applies to the reviewer and not the reviewed. For any feedback to be accepted and effective it needs to come from a respected source, it needs to be consistent and it also needs to be timely.
6. Timing is everything – Perhaps the greatest failing of organisations when reviewing the performance of staff (whether it be good or bad) often the delay between the behaviour and the review for both good and bad behaviour often to a point where the issue is no longer relevant.
7. Feedback, the breakfast of champions – Feedback is always considered an important part of the review process however feedback, and it’s counter-part Constructive Criticism have been overused as ways of telling people how they got it wrong, rather than what they got right, and often the feedback process completely misses the point of only focusing on bad behaviour rather than reinforcing good behaviour which is a better use of the process.
So, is it all gloomy for the appraisal system? Should they be scrapped all together? Perhaps measuring staff production is not the way to go? Maybe there is a better approach.
2. Good cop/Bad cop – The quality of an appraisal system depends heavily upon the consistency of the reviewers. In an ideal situation all individuals within an organisation will be reviewed by one individual, however in anything but the smallest business this is impractical and you are left with the impact of human variance.
3. Hearsay or Heresy – One of the biggest issues in large organisations is history, not of the company although that is important, but of the individual and like all histories it is written by the winners and not the losers. In an appraisal situation the history created around an individual can be very destructive and will influence the Halo and Horns effect.
4. Voter Apathy – When the psychological work on objective setting was done in the 1950’s and 1960’s it was based upon the study of conscientious and motivated individuals. The later work on objectives in the organisations highlighted as one of the critical issues (and one that has been largely ignored) of the enthusiasm and motivation of the staff for the appraisal system itself. The concept of buy-in is an important one and one that is often overlooked by corporations introducing review systems. The staff being reviewed must agree with the process and accept it as useful otherwise the impact of any review will be of little use.
5. R.E.S.P.E.C.T – This is a reversal of the Halo and Horns effect in that this applies to the reviewer and not the reviewed. For any feedback to be accepted and effective it needs to come from a respected source, it needs to be consistent and it also needs to be timely.
6. Timing is everything – Perhaps the greatest failing of organisations when reviewing the performance of staff (whether it be good or bad) often the delay between the behaviour and the review for both good and bad behaviour often to a point where the issue is no longer relevant.
7. Feedback, the breakfast of champions – Feedback is always considered an important part of the review process however feedback, and it’s counter-part Constructive Criticism have been overused as ways of telling people how they got it wrong, rather than what they got right, and often the feedback process completely misses the point of only focusing on bad behaviour rather than reinforcing good behaviour which is a better use of the process.
So, is it all gloomy for the appraisal system? Should they be scrapped all together? Perhaps measuring staff production is not the way to go? Maybe there is a better approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment