ADMS 2400 Lecture 11: ADMS 2400 Tutorial 11 Notes

Read the article below and write a brief (1-2 paragraph) summary. This assignment should be approximately 250 words . Complete this assignment as a Word document.

Time to Scrap Performance Appraisals

Times have changed. More and more companies have decided to radically change (read “scrap” or “re-engineer”) their performance appraisal process.

Last week at our research conference we spoke with Adobe, Juniper, Kelly Services, and a variety of other companies who have decided to do away with traditional performance ratings and dramatically change the annual appraisal process.

Our research shows that this is a strong and positive trend.

Why the process must change.

Why do companies have annual reviews in the first place? They are an artifact from traditional top-down organizations where we had to “weed out” the bottom performers every year. By forcing managers to rate people once per year we can have annual talent reviews and decide who gets more money, who to promote, and who to let go.

Coupled with the performance rating is the “potential” rating, which tries to capture an individual’s potential to move up two levels in the organization (the traditional definition).

This approach is based on a philosophy that “ we cant totally trust managers” so we’re going to force them to fit people into these rating scales. And in many companies (around 20%) there are forced distributions, which mandate that some percent of employees are rated at the bottom and only a limited percent can be rated at the top.

The well publicized problems with this process abound. These include:

Employees need and want regular feedback (daily, weekly), so a once-a-year review is not only too late but it’s often a surprise. Regular coaching is the key to alignment and performance.

Managers cannot typically “judge” an entire year of work from an individual at one time (imagine if your spouse gave you an annual review!), so the annual review is awkward and uncomfortable for both manager and employee.

Manager-employee relationships are not 1:1 like they used to be. We work with many leaders and peers during the year, so one person cannot adequately rate you without lots of peer input.

While some employees are a poor fit and likely are poor performers, these issues should be addressed immediately, not at the end of the year.

Some companies really do have a lot of high performers, so forced ranking eliminates great people and damages the culture.

People are inspired and motivated by positive, constructive feedback – and the “appraisal” process almost always works against this.

The most valuable part of an appraisal is the “development planning” conversation – what can one do to improve performance and engagement – and this is often left to a small box on the review form.

Companies are nervous about eliminating this process because:

We need a fair and validated way to distribute compensation increases (don’t we?)

We need a record of low performance when we let someone go

We need to capture performance data in an employee’s profile for future promotion and other talent reviews, development plans, and career migration

We need a way to make sure managers are doing their jobs well.

Well, I’ve probably discussed these issues with 100+ companies over the last five years and our research shows more and more that companies are ready to let this process go.

Organization structures have changed and companies need to be more agile. We have a shortage of key talent and the keys to success now focus on regular alignment, coaching, creating passion and engagement, and continuous employee development.

The new keys to success:

Develop a “feedback-rich” culture and set of tools (often online, sometimes formal, often informal) that encourages all employees to give each other feedback. Tools from companies like Achievers, Globoforce, and most HR software vendors now enable and make this easy.

Separate the discussions about performance from discussions about potential and future career plans. Yes we need to evaluate people when raise time comes, but that can be a totally different conversation from.

Talk about performance regularly and let employees create their own goals on a regular basis. Force managers to provide ongoing feedback and teach them how to have honest conversations.

Assume that employees already know something about their own performance, and force them to self-assess. People tend to have a good idea of their own strengths and weaknesses – give them an open and positive opportunity to share it. That starts the dialogue about expectations and the match between their self-assessment and that of the organization.

Enable managers to assess performance regularly. Software teams now use Agile tools which evaluate code on a weekly basis. Managers should be giving people feedback regularly. If they learn to do this on a regular basis it will get easier and employees will learn to appreciate it.

Focus managers on hiring the best, so they build a team which strives for 100% high performers. This is never possible of course, but rather than assuming that 20% of your employees will perform poorly, spend more time on assessment, culture, and fit to make sure very few low performers make it into the organization in the first place.

Remember that everyone wants to succeed. If they aren’t performing well it’s not necessarily their fault – the organization should take responsibility for helping them find a better fit if possible.

Set and reset goals frequently. Companies that set performance goals quarterly generate 31% greater returns from their performance process than those who do it annually, and those who do it monthly get even better results. This means employees get feedback on a continuous basis (most sales organizations work this way). Read our research for more details.

Beware of pay for performance plans. While many companies (particularly investment banking, sales) have large pay for performance plans, research showsthat these can create perverse behavior. People focus on their own goals at the expense of the organization. In sales related roles this process works well – when you move to customer service, engineering, and other “builder” roles they can create problems.

Give your leaders a cultural framework and set of values to work from. Companies like Juniper and Deckers (Uggs shoes) focus very heavily on corporate values, forcing managers to hire and manage to these values. This makes selection easier and enables us to evaluate and coach people against higher level frameworks.

Invest in leadership development. Being a manager is a tough job. Managers at all levels struggle with selection, hiring, training, coaching, and evaluation. Give them time and tools to learn, a framework for feedback, and a continuous development process so they learn how to become better.

Reward talent “production” not talent “hoarding.” If you pay your managers to “produce output,” they will focus heavily on talent performance and evaluation. This may be a good thing, but ultimately companies thrive by building skills – so in addition to encouraging managers to produce good work, incent them to produce good talent as well.

I’ve had the opportunity to study HR and performance management for almost 15 years now, and this topic has been controversial for a long time. In today’s globalized,talent constrained workplace it’s clear to me that the traditional appraisal has to change.

Businesses thrive on agility, speed, passion, and alignment. The process of driving and measuring performance has to do the same.

Please answer each question to fill 2 - 4 pages. Also, please avoid plagerism.

Is change more difficult in a recession? As you read the following account of change in a local government agency in England (based on MacLachlan, 2011), consider the following questions:

1. What features of a downturn can make managing organizational change more difficult?

2. What features of a downturn can make managing organizational change more straightforward?

3. Sunderland City Council introduced several changes to deal with the twin goals of maintaining services and reducing spending. What factors explain the success of their program?

With the recession that began in 2009, local government in England had to cut spend- ing while maintaining the same levels of services to the local population. Could costs be cut with a radical redesign of services and new ways of working? Sunderland City Council employed 8,000 people in the northeast of England, receiving two-thirds of their bud- get from central government. In 2010–11, funding fell 10 percent, by £58 million, and more cuts were expected over the next three years. Management wondered whether, given the sharp downturn in the economy, staff would be demotivated and concerned about layoffs. At the start of 2010, the Council launched a transformation program; could things be done differently, but without losing jobs? Unwilling to force staff to retire early or accept redeployment, the Council created an internal jobs market. This encouraged staff in areas that were shrinking to apply for jobs in expanding services, using a web-enabled assessment and employee-job matching system.

​This was linked to a retraining program designed to transform the skills profile of the work- force, focusing on personality, values, and potential, as well as on knowledge and past experience. An employee portal was established to allow staff to create their own CVs. Resistance to these moves came not from staff but from managers who felt that their recruitment decisions were being constrained. For staff who were unable to find new roles, a unit was established called “Switch”: Staff Working In Transition and CHange. Over 200 people between roles, including managers, worked in this unit, reducing the Council’s use of temporary staff on fixed-term contracts, for maternity cover, for exam- ple. The Switch team was also used to drive change, with efficiency savings projects, designing future job roles, and providing careers advice to other staff in transition. The flexible working scheme was popular, allowing staff voluntarily to reduce their paid hours (with the option to increase them again), and to “purchase” up to two weeks’ additional annual leave by spreading the salary sacrifice over the year. A “be your own boss” scheme offered support to employees who wanted to start their own businesses, giving them 20 days’ paid leave and access to a small business adviser. The 50 staff who wanted to proceed continued working part time for the Council to give them some income security while they established their businesses. Local employers were invited to “borrow” and to pay Council staff on secondments.

AN ETHICAL DILEMMA*

Steven, a junior at Northeast State, just started working part-time at a local fast food restaurant chain. Although not his dream job, it paid for tuition and books, and the restaurant gave him the flexible schedule he needed for school. After a few months, Steven found he got along well with all of his coworkers, but it was apparent they did not respect the company or the management. The employees made fun of their bosses and treated the work area like a playground. In some respects, Steven thought it was a fun environment to work in, especially after hours when management was gone for the day. They played their music loudly, laughed, and talked with one another during the down times instead of cleaning up their work areas like they were supposed to. Despite the fact there were ethical policies telling employees how they were expected to act in the workplace, these policies never seemed to be enforced. One day, while working with his coworker Julie on the food assembly table, Steven saw Julie accidentally drop a meat patty on the floor. Without so much as a flinch, she bent down, picked up the patty, stuck it back on the bun, and wrapped it up. It happened so fast that Steven wasn’t even sure he had seen right—especially since Julie had done it so casually. Steven watched in dismay as another worker took the hamburger out to the customer. Over the next few weeks, Steven saw others, including the shift supervisor, do the same thing with burgers and other products. Once, an entire cheeseburger hit the greasy floor, was picked up, and was taken to the customer. This time the customer complained the burger tasted funny and sent it back. Steven noticed other unsanitary practices such as employees not washing their hands between handling meat and vegetables and not washing utensils between uses. Obviously, such practices were against company policies and, if reported, the supervisors in charge could get in trouble and the restaurant would face investigations from the health department. However, there was ample opportunity for things like this to occur. There was no one watching them, and the shift supervisor also engaged in these activities. Steven felt it was the company’s responsibility to hire good people, so they were to blame if these things happened. One day, Steven approached Julie and asked, “Why do so many people here serve food that has fallen on the floor to customers?” Julie thought about it briefly as though she had never considered it before and replied, “I guess it’s because it would take too much time to get another beef patty out of the freezer, cook it, and serve it to the customer. This is a fast food restaurant, after all, and I’m not interested in hearing customers complain about the time it takes for them to get their food. Besides, the restaurants with the fastest service get a bonus from corporate headquarters. Last year the supervisors rewarded us with some extra money for doing our jobs so quickly.” Steven was somewhat taken aback by the honest reply and asked, “Wouldn’t you be disgusted if you were served dirty food at a restaurant?” This time Julie’s response was quick. She said, “What I don’t know won’t hurt me.” She walked off. Several weeks went by and the same practices continued. Steven became more and more concerned about the consequences that could happen in an environment so laid back and unconcerned about safety and health. It seemed like the more time that passed, the worse everyone’s attitude became. One day, at the beginning of his shift, Steven noticed the walk-in freezer had been left open. As he went to shut the door, he discovered a smell of rotten meat. It almost made him vomit. “How could this happen?” he wondered. He threw away the rotten meat without asking anyone because he was afraid of what the answer might be. After Steven threw out the spoiled meat, he began to wonder how the culture of the restaurant got to the point of supporting such practices. He realized the seemingly minor unsanitary practices allowed major issues to arise that could possibly hurt someone. Steven felt he should say or do something, but to whom? He sat down and pondered what he should do.

QUESTIONS | EXERCISES

1. Describe the nature of the organizational culture in the restaurant. What kind of opportunities are there for unethical behavior to occur? Are there any opportunities for ethical behavior?

2. What are some of the incentives employees might have to engage in this type of behavior?

3. If the organizational culture of the restaurant does not change, what are some likely outcomes and consequences?