Four Steps for Evaluating Recognition Programs
By Bob Nelson and Patrick Dailey
The same principles used for measuring the impact of training can be applied to recognition programs.An old management maxim says, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it." Recognition is no exception. Justifying the time, effort and, most importantly, the expense of any recognition program means demonstrating its impact. This requires you to determine a baseline and to show improvement in that baseline. The art of recognition has been with us since the beginning of time. The science of recognition is a recent development that hasbegun to influence the design and delivery of recognition programs. An area that has received little attention is the systematicapproach to evaluating the impact of recognition programs. Recognition programs usually are designed to meet the multiple objectives of performance and administration ease, but they often fall short of the ultimate objective: Does the program work? This article examines a multiple-level system of evaluating recognition programs that derives from Donald Kirkpatrick's model for evaluating the impact of training (Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, Berrett-Koehler, 1994).
First introduced in 1959, Kirkpatrick's model still serves as an industry standard for evaluating training results. Extensive research and application of the model indicate there are four basic levels in measuring the impact of training:
Level 1: Reaction -- Did the participants like the training?
Level 2: Learning -- Did the participants learn something in the training?
Level 3: Behavior -- Did the participants apply what they learned in the training back on the job?
Level 4: Results -- Did the participants" application on the job impact the organization? If you compare the impact of training programs, regardless of the content, to the impact of recognition programs, many similarities exist in how the programs are measured. A modification of Kirkpatrick's model results in a method that can be used to measure the impact of recognition programs.
Here's an examination of the similarities between measuring training and recognition.
Level 1: Reaction Reaction is commonly obtained at the end of a seminar or workshop by simply asking the participants, "How did the training feel to you?" Usually designed as a questionnaire, trainers refer to this level as "happy sheets" or a "feel-good measure." Suchmeasurement shouldn't be underestimated. Participants" reactions can help you determine the effectiveness of a program and how it can be improved. Kirkpatrick believes you can't bypass the first level because, as he puts it, "If [participants] do not react favorably, they will not be motivated to learn." If participants aren't enjoying the program, you'll have an increasingly difficult time keeping them engaged in the activity.
Applying Level 1 evaluation to recognition programs affords the evaluator the easiest, and probably the most common, measure of recognition.
A systematic approach to participants" reaction to the program could include simple questions such as:
Is your work group excited about the recognition program?
Did the program describe how and why you should recognize others?
Are the program guidelines clear and communicated well?
Is the nomination and award process simple to use?
Do you like the merchandise or activities provided as re-wards for the program?
How is it better than the previous program or activity?
What is your favorite part of the program?
Are there areas for improvement?
You can also use various formats such as short answers, complete-the-sentence, ratings, or collect data via focus groups. If you don't measure anything else about your program, you should find out how employees feel about it. Positive reactions to the program can provide information for continued support and enable you to leverage the success of the program. Level 2: Learning Evaluation of whether the participants understand how and why they should use the program requires additional effort. Kirkpatrick defines learning as the "extent to which participants change attitudes, improve knowledge and/or increase skill as a result of attending the program." It's typically easier to determine what new knowledge or skills participants have acquired than the ways in which the training changed their opinions or beliefs. Tests are the most frequent method of evaluating learning. As it applies to recognition, you can measure if certain skills or awareness levels have changed since the roll-out of the program. Participants can be asked (pre- and post-event) how important it is to recognize employees, how often they should do so, in what types of situations and in what ways. Training can teach guidelines for effective praising and provide opportunities to practice the skill.
Other measurable recognition skills include:
Using formal, informal and day-to-day recognition
Knowing how to praise publicly
Timing the recognition appropriately
Writing a persuasive nomination for an employee award
Knowing what forms of recognition work well for different types of performance.
Effective evaluation of a recognition training program should let you determine if the participants understand how to use the program and why they should recognize others. Level 3: Behavior Even if you can show learning has occurred, it doesn't guarantee that learning translates to new behavior back on the job. The third level of training helps assess impact of employee learning back on the job. This form of evaluation can be time consuming and costly, but it's critical in determining if classroom knowledge transfers to the workplace. Evaluating behavior change from the implementation of a recognition program offers several opportunities for determining follow-up interviews and surveys of participants as well as their co-workers. Evaluation of behavior is somewhat easier if the measurement is established as part of the program -- for example, a tracking report or checklist -- not an activity to be done independently of the program. The most effective strategy for evaluating participants" behavior change from a recognition program is to build the measurement system directly into the program. Tracking systems, either centralized or at the department level, enable evaluators to determine if the program is being used. Simple forms of behavior change from introducing recognition programs include:
How frequently do managers recognize their employees?
How many employees receive written praise from managers, peers or customers?
Are recognition tools being used more often?
Are program guidelines adhered to accurately?
Is an appropriate level of recognition given for the behavior?
How often and to what extent is recognition a part of the organization's communication vehicles?
The data can be useful in examining variations over time by manager or department, by level in the organization or by facility, by comparisons of corporate offices versus field operations, by comparisons among different regions and so on. You can buy software from several companies to help you automate these tracking requirements. These programs also help keep recognition fresh and in front of the managers, thus making sure they transfer what they learned back to the job.
Level 4: Results Even if you've measured the first three levels of a recognition program, you still don't know what impact the program has on the organization. The fourth level of training evaluation focuses on the impact the behaviors have on performance. This measurement is the most critical in evaluating training, but the least pursued. Measuring results is both difficult and time consuming. It was originally interpreted as direct real dollars earned or saved as a consequence of the training. Measurement of results has broadened to include indirect benefits such as opportunity cost savings, increase in performance capacity, customer satisfaction, improved safety, and decreased turnover. By including these measures, those who evaluate training have been able to examine many opportunities and take credit for significantly more dollars earned or saved. The results of a recognition program can include both direct and indirect measures of impact. Many recognition programs already include productivity award programs based directly on increased performance, capacity or improvement in production goals. Sales incentive programs can help increase sales revenue and employee suggestion programs often tie rewards directly to a percentage of dollars earned or saved. Indirect measures can focus specifically on the behavior or performance the recognition is designed to reinforce. Then programs could be evaluated for the intent of their design. For example:
Customer service awards that improve attention and care given to the customer awards that enhance cooperation
Safety programs that reduce on-the-job injuries
Quality award systems that enhance product quality.
Even when the reward program's focus is simply to increase the morale of the organization, measures can be built to examine the results of the program's effectiveness. In this instance, employee surveys or exit interviews can include questions that evaluate the level of recognition or indicate the program's effectiveness. For example, when morale is low, employees typically rank one or more of the following survey items very low:
My manager recognizes me when I do good work.
My manager makes time for me when I need to talk.
I feel appreciated for the work I do.
I feel I am a valuable member of the team or department.
Surveying employees" attitudes help determine whether their perceptions of the company are improving. Surveys also help quantify morale at the individual, group and organizational level. The more that recognition activities and programs are geared toward driving significant organizational performance and strategic results, the easier it is to justify funds to support the programs. We all want to have recognition programs that are liked, easy to learn and readily applied back on the job. The challenge for sustaining and improving recognition initiatives is how to evaluate the program's organizational impact. To do this, reverse the evaluation strategy and begin with the end in mind. Define the results first to be sure the program can achieve them. Start with a clear idea of your goals, and the performance you want will strengthen the link of recognition to results.
Bob Nelson is president & founder of San Diego-based Nelson Motivation, Inc., and author of 1001 Ways to Reward Employees and 1001 Ways to Energize Employees, both published by Workman Publishing.
Patrick Dailey is manager of Employee and Organization Development and Recognition for Dallas-based Mary Kay Inc.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Job Evaluation
In a world where wages are often set based on "what the market pays," job evaluation may seem absolute. Analyzing an organization’s jobs in order to arrive at a hierarchy for setting pay could be considered more trouble than it’s worth, especially when labor market data is so readily available. Today job evaluation is found most often in international compensation, particularly in the European Union and Latin America. It is useful for multi-country compensation programs, because it creates a common model with which individuals from different cultures can define jobs, values, and salaries paid.
Definition
Job evaluation is the process of classifying jobs based on their content and requirements. The end goal is a job hierarchy that will assist in pay level decisions.
When did job evaluation begin?
The process of setting pay through job evaluation is over 100 years old. The United States Civil Service Commission first used job evaluation to classify jobs in 1871. Unions then encouraged the spread of job evaluation, by forcing employers to give more attention to rationalized wage structures. During World War II, the United States War Labor Board further encouraged the expansion of job evaluation as a way to reduce wage inequities.
Bureaucracies rely on job evaluation
Following World War II, the use of job evaluation spread rapidly in both U.S. industry and government. This was a time when the size of organizations in the United States increased rapidly, and the need for a comprehensive approach to paying wages became important. It was also a time in which workers stayed with the same company for most of their working years, because organizations provided them with lifelong career paths. Organizations grew into bureaucracies that tended to promote from within. This insulated the organization from the labor market, and required an internal method of setting wages – job evaluation
Job Evaluation Worldwide
The use of job evaluation has been expanding across the world. This is especially true for countries with centrally controlled economies or with income control policies
Holland has used a national job evaluation plan since 1948, as a basis for its national wages and incomes policy.
Great Britain, like the United States, usually employs job evaluation at the plant or company level. The British military uses job evaluation to compare pay for military jobs with what civilian jobs earn.
Canada has used job evaluation extensively in government.
In Australia, job evaluation is an integral part of a compensation process. Government bodies even establish "awards" for job classifications that set wage rates.
Sweden and Germany have a number of industry-wide plans. In Sweden, job evaluation has been used to prove wage discrimination.
South America is also turning to job evaluation, sometimes using plans installed by U.S. compensation consultants.
Russia and some Eastern European countries make wide use of job classification.
Job Evaluation in the United States
Job evaluation is losing ground in the United States thanks to the "New Economy." Job evaluation works best in large bureaucratic organizations; yet in the past 20 years, these behemoths of the U.S. economy have faced increasing problems remaining competitive. The result is downsizing and the disappearance of middle management. Vertical movement within organizations has slowed down, causing employees to jump ship, rather than stay with their current employer.
New companies gaining a foothold are smaller and more organizationally flexible.
The demise of unions has reduced employers' reliance on job evaluation.
Now individuals bargain for their own wages.
Organizations are placing more emphasis on employee skills and performance.
In smaller companies where many employees multi-task and have greater responsibility, it is especially true that the job is becoming less important than the person.
U.S. Job Evaluation Today
All this does not mean that organizations ignore the job when setting wages. Instead, wage systems are becoming more flexible and weight skill and performance more heavily.
Job evaluation systems are becoming simpler, less formal.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Does 360-degree Feedback Negatively Affect Company Performance?
Studies show that 360-degree feedback may do more harm than good. What's the problem?
"If we practiced medicine like we practice management-based on hunch, intuition and ideology-we would have much more malpractice and a lot of mortality and morbidity. )
Ouch. Those are tough words from Dr. Jeffrey C. Pfeffer, professor of organizational behavior at Stanford University and a leader in management thinking, but they are on the mark. Too many organizations base their human resources investment decisions on tradition, fads or competitors' practices, instead of on sound financial measures.
A perfect example of this phenomenon may be 360-degree feedback. Adopted by a growing number of organizations, 360-degree feedback is widely accepted as an effective performance management tool.
However, new research shows that 360-degree feedback programs may hurt more than they help. Watson Wyatt's 2001 Human Capital Index (HCI), an ongoing study of the linkages between specific HR practices and shareholder value at 750 large, publicly traded companies, found that 360-degree feedback programs were associated with a 10.6 percent decrease in shareholder value.
That doesn't necessarily mean 360-degree feedback programs should be abandoned. But it does mean organizations should take a second look at their performance management programs to see if they are accomplishing what they are supposed to.
360-degree feedback is a performance appraisal approach that uses input from an employee's supervisors, colleagues, subordinates-and, sometimes, even suppliers and customers. Most 360-degree feedback programs focus on the manager level and above. The use of 60-degree feedback has grown dramatically in recent years. According th HR conslulting firm William M. Mercer, 40 percent of companies useed 360-degree feedback in 1995; by 2000, this figure jumped to 65 percent.
The premise behind 360-degree feedback is logical: The people who work most closely with an employee see that person's behavior in settings and circumstances that a supervisor may not. And, in theory, the more complete the insight into an employee's performance, the more likely he will understand what needs to be improved and how.
The theory is very promising. The reality, on the other hand, is another matter. Watson lWyatt's 2001 HCI report revealed that companies using 360-degree feedback have lower market value. According to the study, companies that use peer review have a market value that is 4.9 percent lower than similar-- ly stiuated companies that don't use peer review. Likewise, companies that allow employees to evaluate their managers are valued 5.7 percent lower than similar firms that don't.
Taken together, these pactices are associated with a 10.6 percent decline in shareholder value.
Voices of Doubt
The HCI study is not the only indicator that 360-degree feedback programs may be failing to match their promise. Researchers and formerly strong advocates of 360-degree feedback have begun to raise questions. Jai Ghorpade, a professor of management at San Diego State University, wrote in the Academy of Management Executive that, "while it delivers valuable feedback, the 360-degree concept has serious problems relating to privacy, validity and effectiveness."
Ghorpade also reported that out of more than 600 feedback studies, one-third found improvements in performance, one-third reported decreases in performance and the rest reported no impact at all.
John Sullivan, professor of human resource management at San Francisco State University, says "there is no data showing that [360-degree feedback] actually improves productivity, increases retention, decreases grievances or is superior to forced ranking and standard performance appraisal systems. It sounds good, but there is no proof it works."
Roots of the Problem
Why is 360-degree feedback failing to live up to its potential? For starters, giving effective appraisals is a difficult task. Unless everyone participating in a 360-degree program is trained in the art of giving and receiving feedback, the process can lead to uncrtainty and conflict among team member.
Another issue is that there may be a gap between an organization's business objectives and what 360-degree feedback programs measure. Typical 360-degree feedback programs assess competencies that are not directly related to business results or are so broad that they aren't relevant to the average employee.
The time and cost associated with 360-degree feedback also are stumbling blocks. By trying to capture every nuance of a worker's performance, many 360-degree feedback programs have become so complex that they require a much greater investment in time and money than they can return.
Another common problem: Reviewers and those being reviewed fail to follow up after feedback. When there are no consequences for poor performance-which often is the case with 360-degree reviews-performance won't change.
Mend It, Don't End It
Despite these drawbacks, there are good reasons not to give up on 360-degree feedback.
The process still holds the potential to deepen employees' understanding of their own performance. And, it may be able to help companies create value by better aligning job performance with business strategy.
The question is this: Can 360-degree feedback be implemented in such a way that it achieves these benefits without negatively affecting the bottom line? Based on our analsis-and conversations with clientswe believe the following steps may help companies transform 360-degree feedback into a value creator, not destroyer.
* Implement 360-degree feedback for the right reasons. "The first thing you need to ask is why you're doing it," says Paul Rumely, a New York-based executive coach. If you can't articulate a strong business case for a 360-degree feedback program, it should not be introduced.
Jeff Seretan, head of human resources for Barclays Global Investors, based in San Francisco, agrees. "You should not implement it unless you can show that it is solving a problem or adding value," he says.
Barclays uses 360-degree feedback to provide senior executives with input on their management styles. "Our executives had minimal input into their leadership styles, so our goal was to address these information gaps," Seretan explains.
* Assess the costs of the program. Employers must "assess the real burden they are placing on the organization by doing 360-degree feedback," Seretan says. "If you don't do it in a way that is targeted and strategic, you run the risk of value destruction."
* Focus on business goals and strategy. Feedback should provide employees with insight into the skills they must develop to help the organization meet its goals.
* Do not rely solely on 360-degree feedback. Employees must receive regular, timely feedback about their day-today performance. "360-degree feedback is just one part of our approach," Seretan says.
Rumely likes to use 360-degree feedback as a baseline for a more in-depth look at an individual's performance profile. "While I've yet to see a 360 that was inaccurate, often they can stand to be fleshed out a bit," he says.
He recalls one 360-degree feedback assessment that made an employee "look like Mother Theresa." The woman was very talented, he says, "but nobody walks on water like that. I conducted a series of personal interviews with the woman's raters to follow-up. After the interviews, I had a much better view of her strengths and weaknesses."
Additional interviews won't always be necessary, but companies should consider using them in situations where they can help clarify the results of 360 feedback. Ultimately, the thing to remember is that 360 feedback is just one part of an overall performance management system.
* Get support at all levels of the organization. Make sure executives play a key, visible role. And, give line employees a voice in designing and implementing the program to ensure relevance and ownership. A 360-degree feedback program is doomed if HR is its only champion.
* Train people in giving and receiving feedback. Companies that implement 360-degree feedback without first checking and developing managers' feedback skills risk serious damage to teamwork and morale. Providing constructive feedback takes instruction, training and practice.
While training individuals to give and receive feedback may temporarily increase the expense associated with 360degree feedback programs, the gains will outweigh the higher costs as the feedback delivered to participants becomes more focused, targeting the behaviors most closely associated with value creation and destruction. Ultimately, the goal should be to create a culture in which individuals feel comfortable giving and receiving feedback-both positive and negative-on a real-time basis, rather than waiting for an annual review.
Create an "action plan" for each employee based on the feedback. "Knowing what to do and not doing it doesn't get you very far," Pfeffer says.
Rumely recommends that individuals sit down with their managers and their subordinates and review scores. "They should present their scores and then ask, `Which ones do you think are the most critical to being as effective as possible, and what tactics are necessary to get there?"'
Companies should identify and enforce rewards and consequences for individuals related to their success in following their action plans. "If the program is just another add-on and not part of a scorecard, you're kidding yourself," Rumely says.
Monitor implementation, ask for ideas for improvement and make adjustments. Companies don't always get 360-degree feedback exactly right on the first try. By monitoring results, asking for feedback on the process and implementing changes based on the answers, companies may be able to put 360degree feedback programs back on track.
It also helps to continually benchmark results against the objective articulated at the outset. "For us, the test is not whether we have a program in place, it's whether we got the desired result," Seretan says.
* Recognize that 360-degree feedback is not a panacea. Just because an individual receives insight into his behavfor doesn't mean he can-or will-change it. Traditional performance management systems have struggled with this axiom for years, and it is naive to think that 360-degree feedback programs will be significantly different.
Take Another Look
The findings about 360-degree feedback programs are eyeopening. The fact that they are associated with a decline in shareholder value should persuade HR managers to revisit their existing or planned 360-degree feedback programs.
The existence of such data also should force companies to ask themselves what they hope to gain from 360 reviews-or, for that matter, from any HR initiative they undertake. What is the potential return on investment (ROI)? How do ROI projections compare to actual performance? And, if expectations haven't been met, what can be done to improve the effectiveness of these programs?
Implementing a successful 360degree feedback program is akin to managing your own investment portfolio: You can come out ahead, but it takes work.
"If we practiced medicine like we practice management-based on hunch, intuition and ideology-we would have much more malpractice and a lot of mortality and morbidity. )
Ouch. Those are tough words from Dr. Jeffrey C. Pfeffer, professor of organizational behavior at Stanford University and a leader in management thinking, but they are on the mark. Too many organizations base their human resources investment decisions on tradition, fads or competitors' practices, instead of on sound financial measures.
A perfect example of this phenomenon may be 360-degree feedback. Adopted by a growing number of organizations, 360-degree feedback is widely accepted as an effective performance management tool.
However, new research shows that 360-degree feedback programs may hurt more than they help. Watson Wyatt's 2001 Human Capital Index (HCI), an ongoing study of the linkages between specific HR practices and shareholder value at 750 large, publicly traded companies, found that 360-degree feedback programs were associated with a 10.6 percent decrease in shareholder value.
That doesn't necessarily mean 360-degree feedback programs should be abandoned. But it does mean organizations should take a second look at their performance management programs to see if they are accomplishing what they are supposed to.
Popularity of 360-Degree Feedback
360-degree feedback is a performance appraisal approach that uses input from an employee's supervisors, colleagues, subordinates-and, sometimes, even suppliers and customers. Most 360-degree feedback programs focus on the manager level and above. The use of 60-degree feedback has grown dramatically in recent years. According th HR conslulting firm William M. Mercer, 40 percent of companies useed 360-degree feedback in 1995; by 2000, this figure jumped to 65 percent.
The premise behind 360-degree feedback is logical: The people who work most closely with an employee see that person's behavior in settings and circumstances that a supervisor may not. And, in theory, the more complete the insight into an employee's performance, the more likely he will understand what needs to be improved and how.
The theory is very promising. The reality, on the other hand, is another matter. Watson lWyatt's 2001 HCI report revealed that companies using 360-degree feedback have lower market value. According to the study, companies that use peer review have a market value that is 4.9 percent lower than similar-- ly stiuated companies that don't use peer review. Likewise, companies that allow employees to evaluate their managers are valued 5.7 percent lower than similar firms that don't.
Taken together, these pactices are associated with a 10.6 percent decline in shareholder value.
Voices of Doubt
The HCI study is not the only indicator that 360-degree feedback programs may be failing to match their promise. Researchers and formerly strong advocates of 360-degree feedback have begun to raise questions. Jai Ghorpade, a professor of management at San Diego State University, wrote in the Academy of Management Executive that, "while it delivers valuable feedback, the 360-degree concept has serious problems relating to privacy, validity and effectiveness."
Ghorpade also reported that out of more than 600 feedback studies, one-third found improvements in performance, one-third reported decreases in performance and the rest reported no impact at all.
John Sullivan, professor of human resource management at San Francisco State University, says "there is no data showing that [360-degree feedback] actually improves productivity, increases retention, decreases grievances or is superior to forced ranking and standard performance appraisal systems. It sounds good, but there is no proof it works."
Roots of the Problem
Why is 360-degree feedback failing to live up to its potential? For starters, giving effective appraisals is a difficult task. Unless everyone participating in a 360-degree program is trained in the art of giving and receiving feedback, the process can lead to uncrtainty and conflict among team member.
Another issue is that there may be a gap between an organization's business objectives and what 360-degree feedback programs measure. Typical 360-degree feedback programs assess competencies that are not directly related to business results or are so broad that they aren't relevant to the average employee.
The time and cost associated with 360-degree feedback also are stumbling blocks. By trying to capture every nuance of a worker's performance, many 360-degree feedback programs have become so complex that they require a much greater investment in time and money than they can return.
Another common problem: Reviewers and those being reviewed fail to follow up after feedback. When there are no consequences for poor performance-which often is the case with 360-degree reviews-performance won't change.
Mend It, Don't End It
Despite these drawbacks, there are good reasons not to give up on 360-degree feedback.
The process still holds the potential to deepen employees' understanding of their own performance. And, it may be able to help companies create value by better aligning job performance with business strategy.
The question is this: Can 360-degree feedback be implemented in such a way that it achieves these benefits without negatively affecting the bottom line? Based on our analsis-and conversations with clientswe believe the following steps may help companies transform 360-degree feedback into a value creator, not destroyer.
* Implement 360-degree feedback for the right reasons. "The first thing you need to ask is why you're doing it," says Paul Rumely, a New York-based executive coach. If you can't articulate a strong business case for a 360-degree feedback program, it should not be introduced.
Jeff Seretan, head of human resources for Barclays Global Investors, based in San Francisco, agrees. "You should not implement it unless you can show that it is solving a problem or adding value," he says.
Barclays uses 360-degree feedback to provide senior executives with input on their management styles. "Our executives had minimal input into their leadership styles, so our goal was to address these information gaps," Seretan explains.
* Assess the costs of the program. Employers must "assess the real burden they are placing on the organization by doing 360-degree feedback," Seretan says. "If you don't do it in a way that is targeted and strategic, you run the risk of value destruction."
* Focus on business goals and strategy. Feedback should provide employees with insight into the skills they must develop to help the organization meet its goals.
* Do not rely solely on 360-degree feedback. Employees must receive regular, timely feedback about their day-today performance. "360-degree feedback is just one part of our approach," Seretan says.
Rumely likes to use 360-degree feedback as a baseline for a more in-depth look at an individual's performance profile. "While I've yet to see a 360 that was inaccurate, often they can stand to be fleshed out a bit," he says.
He recalls one 360-degree feedback assessment that made an employee "look like Mother Theresa." The woman was very talented, he says, "but nobody walks on water like that. I conducted a series of personal interviews with the woman's raters to follow-up. After the interviews, I had a much better view of her strengths and weaknesses."
Additional interviews won't always be necessary, but companies should consider using them in situations where they can help clarify the results of 360 feedback. Ultimately, the thing to remember is that 360 feedback is just one part of an overall performance management system.
* Get support at all levels of the organization. Make sure executives play a key, visible role. And, give line employees a voice in designing and implementing the program to ensure relevance and ownership. A 360-degree feedback program is doomed if HR is its only champion.
* Train people in giving and receiving feedback. Companies that implement 360-degree feedback without first checking and developing managers' feedback skills risk serious damage to teamwork and morale. Providing constructive feedback takes instruction, training and practice.
While training individuals to give and receive feedback may temporarily increase the expense associated with 360degree feedback programs, the gains will outweigh the higher costs as the feedback delivered to participants becomes more focused, targeting the behaviors most closely associated with value creation and destruction. Ultimately, the goal should be to create a culture in which individuals feel comfortable giving and receiving feedback-both positive and negative-on a real-time basis, rather than waiting for an annual review.
Create an "action plan" for each employee based on the feedback. "Knowing what to do and not doing it doesn't get you very far," Pfeffer says.
Rumely recommends that individuals sit down with their managers and their subordinates and review scores. "They should present their scores and then ask, `Which ones do you think are the most critical to being as effective as possible, and what tactics are necessary to get there?"'
Companies should identify and enforce rewards and consequences for individuals related to their success in following their action plans. "If the program is just another add-on and not part of a scorecard, you're kidding yourself," Rumely says.
Monitor implementation, ask for ideas for improvement and make adjustments. Companies don't always get 360-degree feedback exactly right on the first try. By monitoring results, asking for feedback on the process and implementing changes based on the answers, companies may be able to put 360degree feedback programs back on track.
It also helps to continually benchmark results against the objective articulated at the outset. "For us, the test is not whether we have a program in place, it's whether we got the desired result," Seretan says.
* Recognize that 360-degree feedback is not a panacea. Just because an individual receives insight into his behavfor doesn't mean he can-or will-change it. Traditional performance management systems have struggled with this axiom for years, and it is naive to think that 360-degree feedback programs will be significantly different.
Take Another Look
The findings about 360-degree feedback programs are eyeopening. The fact that they are associated with a decline in shareholder value should persuade HR managers to revisit their existing or planned 360-degree feedback programs.
The existence of such data also should force companies to ask themselves what they hope to gain from 360 reviews-or, for that matter, from any HR initiative they undertake. What is the potential return on investment (ROI)? How do ROI projections compare to actual performance? And, if expectations haven't been met, what can be done to improve the effectiveness of these programs?
Implementing a successful 360degree feedback program is akin to managing your own investment portfolio: You can come out ahead, but it takes work.
Bruce Pfau; Ira Kay; Kenneth M Nowack; Jai Ghorpade 06/01/2002
Counselling
Definition
Counselling is the process of helping another person to find and act upon a solution to their problem.
The person conducting the counselling is known as the counsellor and the one being counselled is reffered to as the counsellee or client.
The task of counselling is to assist others to make make changes in their work or life, or to accept or adjust to the change which they are experiencing in a way that, without counselling, they are finding difficult or impossible. The porpose is not to advise but to provide the vehicle for individuals to achieve their own own solutions to their problems.
Career Counselling
The purpose of Career Counselling are:
Counselling is the process of helping another person to find and act upon a solution to their problem.
The person conducting the counselling is known as the counsellor and the one being counselled is reffered to as the counsellee or client.
The task of counselling is to assist others to make make changes in their work or life, or to accept or adjust to the change which they are experiencing in a way that, without counselling, they are finding difficult or impossible. The porpose is not to advise but to provide the vehicle for individuals to achieve their own own solutions to their problems.
Career Counselling
The purpose of Career Counselling are:
- Helping people to understand where they are and the direction they could take.
- Such assessments should be done by assessors who are independent from the person's current employer. the reaseon is that anyone trying to assess or guide an employee or subordinate will find it difficult to remain objective , while they have the needs or the company foremost in their mind.
- People should enjoy both their work and their private lives.
- Some industries suffer from 'image problems'. This has little or nothing to do with the product but the way in which it is promoted.
- Fewer people today consider long term careers. This is particulary true for those under forty years of age.
- It is difficult to keep people motivated long term.
Using a Questionnaire
This Questionnaire will provide the counsellor with information about the employee's thinking as far as his/her carrer is concerned. This tool can use the answer given to formulate the right approach.
Below is example of the type of question :
CAREER QUESTIONNAIRE
- What do you like most about your current job?
- What do you like least about your current job?
- What would you like to do that you don't already do?
- Why did you choose your present job?
- Where do you see yourself in 3 years' time?
- What are your hobbies and interest?
- What are you currently doing to achive this?
- Which, if any, would you like to pursue as a career?
- How could you achieve this?
- Which of the following motivates you the most? Money/recognation/security/responsibility/promotional prospects //good work relationship?
- How well is this motivator being addresed at present Non existent 1 2 3 4 5 6 Completely
- Briefly describe your ideal career path.
Points to remember
- Avoid giving the employee false hopes and promises
- if you believe that the employee's aspirations are well beyond their abilities, make sure tails of ke sure he or she is fully aware of everything that must be done to achieve his ambition.
- Provide help in the form of information, details of training courses, books to read, people and organisations that may help.
- If you help and encourage the person, they will think well of you. If you hinder them. they will resent you.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Pay for Performance strategies
Pay for Performance is a term used to cover a variety of reward arrangements. Within organisations (PRP) can be used to designate to particular scheme. Pay for Performance is that part of the financial, or financially measurable, reward to an individual which is linked directly to individual, team or company performance.
The principal types of Pay for performance are merit pay, individual incentive bonuses, individual discretionary bonuses, team/company performance bonuses, skill based payments and any other payments which employees my earn or receive related to individual, team or organisation performance improvement. Pay is one of the strongest communicators of how much an organisation values the contribution of an individual or group.
In practice, pay for performance strategies will be emphasized for :
- Focusing attention and harnessing effort where the organisation wants it
- Supporting a performance oriented culture
- Emphasising individual performance or team work as appropriate
- Strengthening the performance planning process
- Rewarding the right people
- Motivating all of the people
- Sharing in success and increasing employee identification with the business
The varieties of Pay for Performance
1. Individual
Short term ( a year or less) : individual bonus, incentive gifts
Longer term : individual longterm cash incentives, merit pay
Mixed : deferred individual bonuses
2. Team
Short term ( a year or less) : team bonus
Longer term : team long term cash incentive, performance unit plans
Mixed : deferred team bonuses
3. Corporate
Short term ( a year or less) : profit sharing (or corporate success) bonus
Longer term : Corporate long term cash incentive, 'automatic' share options, phantom options, co-investment plans, restricted stock
Mixed : deffered corporate bonuses
4. Mixed
Short term ( a year or less) : bonus based on multi level performance criteria, individual bonus from bonus pool
Longer term : long term cash incentive using multi level performance criteria
Mixed : share options individually performance related on grant, individually geared performance unit plans
The most frequently used types of Pay for Performance are :
Merit pay, Individual bonuses, team bonuses, company wide schemes, share schemes, incentive gifts and skill based pay. (by vicky Wright)
In practice, pay for performance strategies will be emphasized for :
- Focusing attention and harnessing effort where the organisation wants it
- Supporting a performance oriented culture
- Emphasising individual performance or team work as appropriate
- Strengthening the performance planning process
- Rewarding the right people
- Motivating all of the people
- Sharing in success and increasing employee identification with the business
The varieties of Pay for Performance
1. Individual
Short term ( a year or less) : individual bonus, incentive gifts
Longer term : individual longterm cash incentives, merit pay
Mixed : deferred individual bonuses
2. Team
Short term ( a year or less) : team bonus
Longer term : team long term cash incentive, performance unit plans
Mixed : deferred team bonuses
3. Corporate
Short term ( a year or less) : profit sharing (or corporate success) bonus
Longer term : Corporate long term cash incentive, 'automatic' share options, phantom options, co-investment plans, restricted stock
Mixed : deffered corporate bonuses
4. Mixed
Short term ( a year or less) : bonus based on multi level performance criteria, individual bonus from bonus pool
Longer term : long term cash incentive using multi level performance criteria
Mixed : share options individually performance related on grant, individually geared performance unit plans
The most frequently used types of Pay for Performance are :
Merit pay, Individual bonuses, team bonuses, company wide schemes, share schemes, incentive gifts and skill based pay. (by vicky Wright)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
