|
| |
Implementation & training key to success with new performance
review process
We are starting a new performance review process in our organization after
many years of doing a brief �check the box� kind of review. Everyone agrees that
we need to do something more meaningful, so employees hear feedback on their
performance and can have a good discussion with their managers.
During the design of the new review, the design committee decided to include a
component for peers and associates to give input into each other�s reviews. This
is where we are getting some questions and concerns.
The main concern is that people are fearful of giving honest feedback, because
they fear that their response could come back to haunt them if the person knows
who said something negative about them.
Another concern is that people may be �too nice� when providing this feedback,
in hopes that people will be nice back to them on their review, or maybe because
they don�t think their honesty will do any good anyway.
The main idea behind the review is so that the managers will hear other people�s
input and also we are trying to create better communications and support across
functions. In the past, each department has done its own thing and we are trying
to create more teamwork across the company.
We are doing some training for the managers so they know how to do a better job
of evaluating performance. We know the managers need help on this because we
have some favoritism and some people who don�t like conflict or being direct
when giving feedback.
Can you suggest anything that might help get rid of the concerns people have
about being honest on peer and associate reviews?
Answer:
One thing that could help reduce the fear--especially during the first few years
with this new format--is to keep responses confidential. I don�t know how you
have structured gathering the feedback, but here is one method:
The manager of an employee (we�ll call the employee �Pete�) asks Pete for the
names of five or more associates Pete works with on a regular basis. Ideally,
Pete will select a few of his co-workers, a few of his peers outside the
department and one manager for whom he has done some project work. If Pete has
selected his best buddies, his manager would work with Pete to broaden the list
to include other people. Pete�s manager then selects a minimum of three people
from Pete�s list to ask about Pete�s performance.
Rather than ask for general feedback, Pete�s manager will ask for specific
feedback examples. The manager will follow up with these three people if there
are examples he doesn�t understand or probe for more details if, for example, a
comment was quite negative and the manager wants to understand more about why
the person sees Pete�s performance as below par.
The manager would not reveal which people on the list he asked but would use
their feedback to validate or expand on his own observations about Pete�s
performance. If the managers don�t reveal who said what, there may be less fear
about being honest.
The key is that all associates need to be given guidelines on how to fill out
the forms, for example they should only comment on patterns of behavior and they
need to be accountable for providing specific examples. Blasting someone without
supporting evidence will only cause the manager to discount their input.
Don�t be surprised if people do tiptoe around the first year. Because they
aren�t sure what to expect, there is often a tendency to be too generous in
rating each other. However, my experience is that they tend to get more honest
over time, especially if they see no retaliation has occurred and their
confidence grows about the managers using the information wisely.
The best way to increase confidence in the process is to do next year�s reviews
very well. If each employee has a good experience-- in other words, the feedback
gathered on them is used wisely-- they will warm to the idea of being more
honest. If managers use the feedback from others as a hammer or hide behind it
and don�t share their own views, it will be perceived negatively.
As with any performance review process, no one wants to be surprised. So,
informal input should be gathered on a regular basis and a mid-year check in is
a good idea, so the employee has enough time to work on any problems that may be
developing.
Finally, it would be a good idea to have a �calibration meeting� with all the
managers in each department to discuss the reviews of their employees prior to
delivering them. The purpose is to create more consistency between managers.
Some managers tend to be easy raters and others are tough. A facilitated meeting
where ratings are openly discussed and supporting evidence is articulated will
be educational and help to establish more consistent standards by which people
are measured.
JoanLloyd has a solid track record of excellent results. Her firm,
JoanLloyd
& Associates, specializes in leadership
development, organizational change and teambuilding. This includes executive
coaching, 360-degree feedback processes, customized leadership training,
conflict resolution between teams or individuals,
internal consulting skills training for HR professionals and retreat
facilitation. Clients report results such as: behavior
change in leaders, improved team performance and a more committed
workforce.
JoanLloyd has earned her C.S.P. (certified speaking professional) designation
from the National Speakers Association and speaks to corporate audiences, as
well as trade & professional associations across the country. Reach her at (800)
348-1944, mailto:info@joanlloyd.com, or
www.JoanLloyd.com
|
