I remain flummoxed at all the attempts to come up with various methods/systems/etc that promise to make performance review a process to help both parties in their workplaces.
See, after many years in industrial relations, the one system that worked and worked well is still the best I have ever seen. Maybe because it is so old the thinking is that it has to be changed?
Because this lemming-like movement to come up with yet another means of helping folk with their work is so consistent, let me remind yougoodfolk how the TWI program worked:
Each task that makes up the complete job description was broken down into the specific steps.
The key points [performance standards/criteria/whatever] were detailed for each step.
The key points were allocated a ranking within that step to determine what were the most important.
Obviously folk were trained to meet those key points in each step.
Review timetables were set to ensure achievement eg first review after a day; second review after a week etc.
Review was simple...…….key point[s] not achieved...……..more/better training......key point[s] achieved, move on to other steps/key points...….key points surpassed, then decide if that level if performance becomes the new norm or remains...…...praise.
Reset timetables no more than a month out.
That's it.
Remember this process should apply throughout the whole organization, so senior managers become even better at their jobs!!
I have a feeling TWI has been overlooked because it was too basic, without all the fancy terminology, like changing induction to on-boarding!!
Try it...……….bit like cheese and whisky...…...TWI gets better with age!!!!
Greetings.....
No disagreement with the content here at all, mainly because it mirrors the content of an old but hugely successful training program from years back called Training Within Industry [TWI]…...Job Methods.
My one concern however is that it is addressed primarily to HR "professionals", where in my clear view it should be worded so that it is addressed as being a tool for HR folk to use with their Managers. See, the ones who have to do what is proposed above, are the Managers, within their Team. It is NOT for the HR person to come along and manage the Team in such a way a to use "conflict" as a positive. Always the Manager for 2 reasons: first, it is their Team so why hand over to some outsider who just leaves each day [particularly when the going gets rough], and second, it is a hugely valuable part of training the Manager. After all these years still extremely good advice.
Greetings...…
Good stuff here, but maybe I have got it wrong, because to me it seems like we aren't being advised to "ditch" competency based interviewing but modify it? Is that the correct take from this?
All good stuff Charles, particularly the notion "well being" must be the responsibility of the Employee so long as the Employer accepts and addresses their responsibility to provide a workplace where Staff feel engaged, feel encouraged to perform even better; and to feel they have been given every encouragement to perform at least to the standards required.
Things haven't changed much have they??
Seems like the industrial relations environment in the UK is a bit different from NZ...........because if any Employer here commented that if they weren't happy why are they still there, every employment lawyer/advocate/Union would be quickly in print asserting constructive dismissal. In this regard you are much more sensible than we are.
Greetings...…..
Any idea as to how organisations can become more efficient should always be welcome on a management programme, and this topic is no exception. Good reading as it reinforces what has been out there for way before my time...……….if you want something to work then the senior team must not just embrace it, but live it. Have no idea why this message is still missing from so many places!!
Small consideration though...……...why cannot empathy be taught?? Reason I ask is if we are able to identify empathy at work, how come it is not possible to lift out those empathetic actions and teach them to others. See, unless I have completely missed the bus on this, every performance requirement is identified by an action. So in that case why not pick up on those actions and work with people as to how they can make them work for themselves in their Team? Just a matter of helping them recognize what you, the Team Leader, look for to tell them empathy is taking place.
Interesting article. I note however under the heading "Manage distractions" the suggestions seem to apply more to office situations. Have I got this completely wrong? If not, then are there some suggestions from the author as to how that can be achieved in a more factory or other environment ie construction; agriculture; transport?
In my experience involving both industrial relations and management training, one of the most valuable tools available to assist with achieving productivity outcomes for both the person and the organization, is a very detailed explanation of what is required.
That means not just the jobs to be done, but more importantly the specific things to be done to ensure those jobs are completed as required. Too often performance requirements/key points/performance criteria/call-them-what-you-will, are not easily understood especially by new members to the Team.
Having everything spelt out in simple language they understand helps introduce the productivity issues right at the beginning. It's not good enough to have performance requirements listed as having to be "tradesmanlike"; or "professional"; or timely, as these will mean different things to different people especially in the beginning.
So telling people exactly what is meant by being a team player...…...or putting the customer first and other such terminology, is invaluable. And what makes things even worse is when organisations fail to apply this thinking to senior positions as well. No wonder the world is still struggling with helping people achieve to their best!!! Perhaps if we spent less time changing "induction" to "onboarding", as well as producing volumes on "wellness" when what people more easily understand is that organisations must consider the more basic health and safety issues for their Staff both at work and where possible, away from work. Leave the fancy stuff until later.
Another interesting article on "flexible working" but again a little disappointing I feel in that the emphasis is more on remote working, rather than the plethora of other flexible opportunities there are for Employers to consider.
Reason I raise this is that particularly for Managers reading these articles they are not encouraged to consider the other opportunities available to them. There is no doubt that the number of Staff who are able to work remotely is very small by comparison. Therefore the more opportunities we pursue to bring flexibility to the working lives of the majority, must be encouraged for obvious reasons. So good luck with contributors providing us with a description of those opportunities.
All good stuff people, but apart from this flash new term VOE, it is still the same message from way back. Nothing has changed. What I would be interested to hear from consultants etc is why management have not taken on board these messages. Nothing has changed...……….managers have been told/advised/trained/call-it-what-you-will, to follow the guidelines you describe above for as long as I can remember, and given I am now retired that means from some way back. The negative in me suggests it is because businesses are able to exist and in some cases exist very well, without treating their people as described. …...and they are content to operate this way.
I struggle even more to understand why it is that those who do manage as above exist even better, with the results you describe, but the others don't seem to "get-it". Mind, it has to begin and continue from the top and I oftentimes see that is where the message seems to get lost.
Keep up your good work...……..maybe some day more and more will take on board what you recommend.
My answers
I remain flummoxed at all the attempts to come up with various methods/systems/etc that promise to make performance review a process to help both parties in their workplaces.
See, after many years in industrial relations, the one system that worked and worked well is still the best I have ever seen. Maybe because it is so old the thinking is that it has to be changed?
Because this lemming-like movement to come up with yet another means of helping folk with their work is so consistent, let me remind yougoodfolk how the TWI program worked:
Each task that makes up the complete job description was broken down into the specific steps.
The key points [performance standards/criteria/whatever] were detailed for each step.
The key points were allocated a ranking within that step to determine what were the most important.
Obviously folk were trained to meet those key points in each step.
Review timetables were set to ensure achievement eg first review after a day; second review after a week etc.
Review was simple...…….key point[s] not achieved...……..more/better training......key point[s] achieved, move on to other steps/key points...….key points surpassed, then decide if that level if performance becomes the new norm or remains...…...praise.
Reset timetables no more than a month out.
That's it.
Remember this process should apply throughout the whole organization, so senior managers become even better at their jobs!!
I have a feeling TWI has been overlooked because it was too basic, without all the fancy terminology, like changing induction to on-boarding!!
Try it...……….bit like cheese and whisky...…...TWI gets better with age!!!!
Cheers. DonR.
Greetings.....
No disagreement with the content here at all, mainly because it mirrors the content of an old but hugely successful training program from years back called Training Within Industry [TWI]…...Job Methods.
My one concern however is that it is addressed primarily to HR "professionals", where in my clear view it should be worded so that it is addressed as being a tool for HR folk to use with their Managers. See, the ones who have to do what is proposed above, are the Managers, within their Team. It is NOT for the HR person to come along and manage the Team in such a way a to use "conflict" as a positive. Always the Manager for 2 reasons: first, it is their Team so why hand over to some outsider who just leaves each day [particularly when the going gets rough], and second, it is a hugely valuable part of training the Manager. After all these years still extremely good advice.
Cheers. DonR.
Greetings...…
Good stuff here, but maybe I have got it wrong, because to me it seems like we aren't being advised to "ditch" competency based interviewing but modify it? Is that the correct take from this?
Cheers. DonR.
All good stuff Charles, particularly the notion "well being" must be the responsibility of the Employee so long as the Employer accepts and addresses their responsibility to provide a workplace where Staff feel engaged, feel encouraged to perform even better; and to feel they have been given every encouragement to perform at least to the standards required.
Things haven't changed much have they??
Seems like the industrial relations environment in the UK is a bit different from NZ...........because if any Employer here commented that if they weren't happy why are they still there, every employment lawyer/advocate/Union would be quickly in print asserting constructive dismissal. In this regard you are much more sensible than we are.
Cheers. DonR.
Greetings...…..
Any idea as to how organisations can become more efficient should always be welcome on a management programme, and this topic is no exception. Good reading as it reinforces what has been out there for way before my time...……….if you want something to work then the senior team must not just embrace it, but live it. Have no idea why this message is still missing from so many places!!
Small consideration though...……...why cannot empathy be taught?? Reason I ask is if we are able to identify empathy at work, how come it is not possible to lift out those empathetic actions and teach them to others. See, unless I have completely missed the bus on this, every performance requirement is identified by an action. So in that case why not pick up on those actions and work with people as to how they can make them work for themselves in their Team? Just a matter of helping them recognize what you, the Team Leader, look for to tell them empathy is taking place.
Cheers. DonR.
Thanks Lucy..………...I'll keep that in mind. Cheers. DonR.
Interesting article. I note however under the heading "Manage distractions" the suggestions seem to apply more to office situations. Have I got this completely wrong? If not, then are there some suggestions from the author as to how that can be achieved in a more factory or other environment ie construction; agriculture; transport?
Cheers. DonR.
In my experience involving both industrial relations and management training, one of the most valuable tools available to assist with achieving productivity outcomes for both the person and the organization, is a very detailed explanation of what is required.
That means not just the jobs to be done, but more importantly the specific things to be done to ensure those jobs are completed as required. Too often performance requirements/key points/performance criteria/call-them-what-you-will, are not easily understood especially by new members to the Team.
Having everything spelt out in simple language they understand helps introduce the productivity issues right at the beginning. It's not good enough to have performance requirements listed as having to be "tradesmanlike"; or "professional"; or timely, as these will mean different things to different people especially in the beginning.
So telling people exactly what is meant by being a team player...…...or putting the customer first and other such terminology, is invaluable. And what makes things even worse is when organisations fail to apply this thinking to senior positions as well. No wonder the world is still struggling with helping people achieve to their best!!! Perhaps if we spent less time changing "induction" to "onboarding", as well as producing volumes on "wellness" when what people more easily understand is that organisations must consider the more basic health and safety issues for their Staff both at work and where possible, away from work. Leave the fancy stuff until later.
Cheers. DonR.
Greetings.....
Another interesting article on "flexible working" but again a little disappointing I feel in that the emphasis is more on remote working, rather than the plethora of other flexible opportunities there are for Employers to consider.
Reason I raise this is that particularly for Managers reading these articles they are not encouraged to consider the other opportunities available to them. There is no doubt that the number of Staff who are able to work remotely is very small by comparison. Therefore the more opportunities we pursue to bring flexibility to the working lives of the majority, must be encouraged for obvious reasons. So good luck with contributors providing us with a description of those opportunities.
Cheers. DonR.
All good stuff people, but apart from this flash new term VOE, it is still the same message from way back. Nothing has changed. What I would be interested to hear from consultants etc is why management have not taken on board these messages. Nothing has changed...……….managers have been told/advised/trained/call-it-what-you-will, to follow the guidelines you describe above for as long as I can remember, and given I am now retired that means from some way back. The negative in me suggests it is because businesses are able to exist and in some cases exist very well, without treating their people as described. …...and they are content to operate this way.
I struggle even more to understand why it is that those who do manage as above exist even better, with the results you describe, but the others don't seem to "get-it". Mind, it has to begin and continue from the top and I oftentimes see that is where the message seems to get lost.
Keep up your good work...……..maybe some day more and more will take on board what you recommend.
Cheers. DonR.