What’s the attractiveness of forced rankings in employee performance management?  Why, in effect, decide in advance that every work group must have 10% losers?  The answer: it is a simple, bold–and therefore efficient–move that makes up for the failure of the organization to take the time necessary to develop its managers’ ability to judge employee performance realistically.  As such, it suggests the worhip of efficiency while sacrificing effectiveness.

The practice of forced ranking requires managers to impose a bell shaped curve on their employee performance ratings.  Thusly, each group ends up with 10-20% star, 10-20% unsatisfactory and 60-80% satisfactory performers. 

What’s the thoughtful alternative?  Management courage and commitment!  In other words, norm-based ratings.

Norm-based ratings take time to develop, but once developed become powerful and part of the culture.  They start with clear language around the numbers.  A five-point rating scale is preferred by most organizations, with, for example, 3 titled Expected Performance and 5 titled Far Exceeds, each with precise definitions.  Experience shows, though, that simply publishing such a scale is not enough.  That’s where courage and commitment come in.

Management must have thorough discussions around the meaning of each level of performance rating before the rating period.  And, during the rating period, leadership must periodically pull management together to discuss ratings and review planned ratings across groups to get agreement, to create norms establishing that a three in one department is equivalent to a three in another.

Meeting and working together, managers will gain the courage and commitment to call a three a three and so forth.  It is hard work to initiate this degree of consistency, but once established, it’s contagious.

Please email comments to Tom.Hattersley@StarwayService.com.

Comments Off

Human resource managment best practices are readily known.  Harvard Business Review, Business Week and even newspapers carry articles about effective people managment processess these days. Indeed, most executives are very conversant on current talent management practices and public company annual reports talk about people as a key asset.

So why do most employees not get an annual performance reviews?  Or at best, late ones poorly done?  Answer: most executives still don’t understand the difference between commitment to talent management and nice words about valuing people.  Or, as legendary football coach, Joe Paterno, might put it, “We all want to win, but few of us are willing to commit to the preparation necessary to win.”

HR stuff is hard work.  It requires analyzing and articulating the details of job performance expectations, performance sampling and measurement and face-to-face, heart-to-heart discussions with one’s direct reports.  It’s not for the unbeliever who merely mouths the corporate creed to appear part of the group.

To some extent, though, this is not surprising.  Talent management is the close cousin of change management (change management deals with changing an organization’s behavior and talent management deals with changing individuals’ behavior) and the vast majority of change management inititiatives fail.  Why?  Poor implementation.

So, there’s the learning.  Take action, some action.  It could be as simple as well-discussed job descriptions, clear annual objectives, or annual performance feedback.  Then, build on that by adding mutli-rater feedback and individual development plans.

As fans of country music superstar, Alan Jackson,  know, in many areas of business and life….”We need a little less talk and a lot more action.”

 Please email comments to Tom.Hattersley@StarwayService.com

Comments Off

In small and mid-sized organizations, the HR Manager role is often a solo assignment or one with only a shared support person.  This poses a problem.  This problem might be called The Tyranny of Service.

In other words, in a small HR department, the demands and expectations regarding service, both to employees and management, is so great that no time is left to play a strategic role.  So how can a small HR department keep its effectiveness as a service provider and play its appropriate role as leader in organizational strategy? 

It’s not an easy question to answer.   But for sure, one answer is not to ignore the service expectations.  Why?  Well, if you can’t even provide appropriate service regarding, for example, the benefit plan, you surely will not be listened to when talking about strategy.  Great service is absolutely necessary; it is just not suffcient.

One approach is to get into the middle of the conversation regarding organizational strategy.  How does an HR person do that?  Simple: engage management in a discussion of strategy by asking what makes your organization different from your competitors, what do your customers value and, therefore, what are the key employee behaviors that will make the organization succeed.  Then, set up systems–services–which select employees with those behaviors, train employees in those behaviors, assess employees compared to those behavors, and reward employee for those behaviors.

Voila!  Provide strategic services.

 Please email comments to Tom.Hattersley@StarwayService.com

Comments Off

With Process Improvement, Quality Improvement, LEAN and other initiatives becoming nearly standard practice, managers readily understand that all operational work processess should be considered for standardization, measurement, documentation, flow charting and the like.  The questions arises, Why not human resources management processess?  Said another way, isn’t employment interviewing a work process?  Isn’t an annual appraisal a work process?  Aren’t they subject to benchmarking and best practice comparison?

Leading HR Execs definitely think so.  And, the implications of this are many.  For example, employment candidate selection and interviewing should be organized into a step-by-step process carried out by trained interviewers using state-of-the-art candidate assessment tools. 

Performance assessments should have process requirements as rigid as any in the organization, including deadlines, requirements and formats.  They should include multi-rater or 360 feedback.  Every performer should have an individual development plan as the capstone of the performance assessment process.

Applying work process management logic to human resources management practices is key to competitiveness in today’s world.  In fact, better talent management practice is the best area of opportunity for increased competitiveness in an already very efficient economy.

Please email comments to Tom.Hattersley@StarwayService.com

Comments Off