Annual objectives are not secrets

In Oakwood we regularly hear about organisations where line managers, and sometimes Human Resources teams, complain that performance management (PM) is no more than a bureaucratic paper-pushing exercise. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of PM. After all, PM is really just…

• Making sure people understand what work they need to do and why they need to do it
• Checking that they are doing it to acceptable standards and taking action if standards drop
• Once it’s done, reviewing and evaluating the work to try and learn from it

… and that seems no more or less than good management.

So here is a simple change to operating practices that makes a big difference to the impact and effectiveness of PM. STOP MAKING INDIVIDUAL OBJECTIVES SECRET.

There is no reason for most PM objectives not to be made public knowledge within the organisation. Obviously, those that concern confidential information should not be disclosed to everyone, but such objectives are rare.

So rather than hiding people’s PM objectives in drawers or filing cabinets or computer files, let other employees see them. If space allows, have every person in the organisation write their own objectives on a white board close to their desk or workstation. Put them on the intranet. Put team, department and divisional objectives on noticeboards.

Doing so will have a number of benefits:

• Most people will put more care into the creation of objectives, knowing that they will be under public scrutiny
• The whole PM process will be policed better by the people involved with it
• Less-than-SMART objectives will be spotted and revised
• Ambiguities, repetitions and gaps in coverage will become obvious
• Different people’s objectives will become more consistent
• Understanding of other people’s jobs will improve
• ‘Silo mentalities’ will become less common

If people also record their performance beside their objectives, even more benefits will accrue:

• Good work will be spotted and reinforced more easily
• Shortfalls and problems will be more noticeable and so hopefully easier to solve
• People will be able to ‘horse trade’: offering help with others’ objectives if their own are furthered

Go on. Try it!

The timing of performance management/review/appraisal meetings

For the next few weeks, we'll be looking at performance management isues. First, when do the review or appraisal meetings happen?

Many organisations still combine within a single annual meeting the opportunity for line managers and staff members to evaluate the previous year’s performance and set the next year's objectives, goals or targets. In a typical company year – starting on 1 January and ending 31 December – this means that such a single annual meeting usually happens late in December or early in January, and occasionally slips to mid-Quarter 1 or even later.

In some organisations this meeting lacks focus due to other business priorities and, as the review is intended to look at the whole of the last 12 months it often feels rushed, and the goal setting often feels much too late. Additionally with only one annual performance review, how many of us can remember what we did 3 months ago, far less 9 or 12 months ago?

But it needn’t be like this. CIPD best practice guidelines suggest that there should be at least quarterly one-to-one review meetings between staff and their line managers. The schedule might look like this:

January: summative* review of the previous year’s performance against objectives

April: formative* review of current performance against objectives for this year Q1

July: formative review of current performance against objectives for this year Q2

October: formative review of current performance against objectives for this year Q3 AND make a start in creating next year’s objectives

Convincing line managers and staff to hold four performance management meetings a year rather than one will be easier once they realise that the four meetings can be much shorter and simpler. They give managers and staff members the opportunity to re-focus their attention so they can alter, change or even re-set the objectives for the coming period. By getting staff members to bring along evidence of their performance, which then becomes the main topic for discussion, there can be greater buy-in to future achievement.

* Summative and formative as used here have precise meanings:

The summative meeting looks back over the entire year after it is completed and tries to learn from it. This meeting evaluates the original objectives, any changes made to objectives over the year, and the performance of the staff member in working toward those objectives. The point of this meeting is to ‘draw a line’ after the previous year and pass on data for other important HR processes, such as Learning Needs Analysis and the allocation of Rewards.

The formative meeting is rather different: it looks at current objectives and current performance and is intended to ‘steer’ current and ongoing work to maintain total focus on business objectives.

Useful ideas from psychometrics (first of an occasional series)

When we describe a person (in situations like recruitment or development discussions, but also anywhere, really) we often use phrases like ‘she’s confident’ or ‘he’s extravert’ as if they were absolutes, when we are really comparing the person with something. Trouble is, we don’t always specify or even know what, if anything, we are comparing the person with.

So here are a few concepts from the world of psychometrics that could help us clarify our thinking: criterion-referenced vs. norm-referenced vs. ipsative comparisons.

In criterion-referenced comparison we are comparing particular qualities of a person to an objective external measure: ‘his approach to health and safety in the workplace was exactly in line with the organizational policy’.

In norm-referenced comparison we are comparing the person to a (specific) group of other people: ‘she was the most systematic of a pretty well-organised group.’

It can be useful to make both criterion- and norm-referenced comparisons: ‘although he met the necessary requirements for this competency as listed in the person specification, he was judged the poorest of all the candidates in this area’ or ‘she did not meet our minimum standards, but she was the best of the available applicants’.

Finally, ipsative comparisons compare different qualities within a single individual. For example ‘his personal drive for success outweighs his introversion’.

If we put all three types of comparison together we can make very rich descriptions of people: ‘although decision making is probably the least of his talents, and did not meet the high levels of ability shown by his peers, it still exceeds the minimal standards we have set for this role.’

So: you and your managers can experiment with enriching the way they describe people in your organisation by using some ideas from psychometrics. Pass it on!

Social networking applications and websites

Many organisations ban or block their employees’ access to and use of social networking websites like Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn in order to reduce security risks or stop the employees ‘wasting company time’. But have you thought about a different approach: allowing – even encouraging – such access but MANAGING the process through effective planning and goal setting, monitoring and measurement, assessment and evaluation. After all, many of your (younger?) employees are already spending time on social networking sites every day, so why not nudge them into using them to the benefit of the organisation?

For example, a new application called Ning allows users – individuals or organisations – to set up their own ‘private’ social networks. So you could have an internal organisational social network, working like LinkedIn or Facebook, which only your staff would have access to. Train your people in what to do then let them loose, sending private person-to-person messages, and posting less confidential messages to others’ walls, with linked attachments. Automatically, the software will tell their friends and contacts what they are doing in a similar way to how they half-hear other employees’ telephone conversations in an open-plan workplace. At a stroke, some of the need for monthly reporting could just fade away.

If you are braver, you could enable the use of Facebook and LinkedIn by workers. Just make sure you train them how to set their security at maximum: vital with the increasing risk of identity theft. And make sure there’s a shared understanding of what is meant by ‘Commercial in Confidence’ and ‘Personnel in Confidence’. You may even need a new policy on this.

Twitter’s a bit different of course. It’s best thought of as a mini Blog, broadcasting to anyone who’ll listen. But Twitter also allows some levels of security. And many of the best and most interesting Twits are already Twittering in, from and about their work.

So, you don’t have to automatically ban new technologies in work. You can research them, trial them and MANAGE them!