Comments on: Santa’s Performance Review http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/ Don\'t let the weasels get ya down... Tips for being a better manager and dealing with the insanity of the workplace Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:49:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Resource Blogs NDTVjobs.com » Santa’s Performance Review http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-32065 Resource Blogs NDTVjobs.com » Santa’s Performance Review Thu, 31 May 2007 06:36:31 +0000 http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-32065 [...] Read More at Cranky Middle Manager [...] [...] Read More at Cranky Middle Manager [...]

]]> By: Total Talent Management - ExecuTRACK, A StepStone Company http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-27495 Total Talent Management - ExecuTRACK, A StepStone Company Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:12:55 +0000 http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-27495 [...] Performance reviews - why easier isn't always better My grandmother used to say to me, if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing properly. But then again, Granny never gave me an annual performance appraisal (there was no pocket-money-for-performance in our house). Recently we have had several requests for a "writing assistant" as part of the performance management module in ETWeb. In fairness I must say, these requests have come mainly from prospects rather than existing customers. Now we all know how much managers hate doing performance reviews, it is just something that managers have to do. The goal of a "writing assistant" is to help managers formulate the individual appraisals. Tools or wizards are used to help generate the text of the appraisal based on input from the manager. This makes the whole process a lot easier for managers and leads to an improved performance management process. I'm not sure I agree. Sure, this makes the process easier for the manager in question but there is a reason why performance appraisals are hard - because managers need to think about them. Presumably there was a good business case for putting a performance management system in place (I'll leave that whole discussion for another day). The problem is, once that system's in place it seems to take on a life of its own. Subsequent actions are geared to making the performance process work, losing sight of the original goals. The typical conversation looks like this: CEO: We just don't seem to be as effective as our competition at executing our strategy.HR: Maybe our operational efficiency just isn't up to par. Or maybe it is, and we're just focusing time and effort in the wrong places.CEO: Well how can we make sure that our people are all doing what they should be doing?HR: A performance management system would let us align goals throughout the organization with our strategic goals.CEO: Perfect! Make it so. ... some months later... CEO: So how is our new performance management system working out?HR: Just great! Feedback from managers has been very positive, the automated system has ensured that we don't put extra workload on our managers and 99.7% of reviews are in on time.CEO: Great job. Sounds like the program has been a great success. And that's my gripe with a writing assistant. A writing assistant is great for making the whole performance appraisal simpler to get through, but does it really do anything to improve the process? In fact, I would argue the complete opposite. Providing stock answers and template-based reviews actively reduces the quality of feedback - if you give managers an easy option you can be pretty sure they will take it, practically guaranteeing that they don't take the time to busy themselves with the specifics of the employee in question. Now I'm not saying that making the process easier for the manager is fundamentally a bad idea. But it needs to be done in such a way that it is not detrimental to quality. For example, the performance blog included in ETWeb allows both managers and employees to maintain performance-relevant notes throughout the year. This significantly reduces the recency effect when review time comes around by allowing both sides to review their notes for the whole year. The key to this is making the process as painless as possible - the feature is available right where you need it, a single click, add a quick note and forget about it. Reduced effort, increased quality. So if I'm not a fan of features like writing assistants, why does there nonetheless seem to be demand for them? As already said, there is a temptation once a system is in place to focus on the system for the system's sake. The other key driver however is legal compliance. This is something that is especially prevalent in the U.S. market due to its litigious nature. In this case, a documented legal trail may well be a very desirable thing. But if that's the case, we shouldn't be trying to slide it in under the cover of a performance management system. By implementing tools like writing assistants we seek to simplify the process at the expense of dumbing it down. Instead of fostering a culture of performance improvement we're just paying lip service to the concept of performance management. And like my grandmother said, that's not doing the job properly. So what do you think? Are writing assistants the way to go? ExecuTRACK product development is and always has been driven by its customers. We'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Posted: Friday, April 13, 2007 5:10 PM by n.reed Filed under: ETWeb, Performance Management [...] [...] Performance reviews - why easier isn’t always better My grandmother used to say to me, if a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing properly. But then again, Granny never gave me an annual performance appraisal (there was no pocket-money-for-performance in our house). Recently we have had several requests for a “writing assistant” as part of the performance management module in ETWeb. In fairness I must say, these requests have come mainly from prospects rather than existing customers. Now we all know how much managers hate doing performance reviews, it is just something that managers have to do. The goal of a “writing assistant” is to help managers formulate the individual appraisals. Tools or wizards are used to help generate the text of the appraisal based on input from the manager. This makes the whole process a lot easier for managers and leads to an improved performance management process. I’m not sure I agree. Sure, this makes the process easier for the manager in question but there is a reason why performance appraisals are hard - because managers need to think about them. Presumably there was a good business case for putting a performance management system in place (I’ll leave that whole discussion for another day). The problem is, once that system’s in place it seems to take on a life of its own. Subsequent actions are geared to making the performance process work, losing sight of the original goals. The typical conversation looks like this: CEO: We just don’t seem to be as effective as our competition at executing our strategy.HR: Maybe our operational efficiency just isn’t up to par. Or maybe it is, and we’re just focusing time and effort in the wrong places.CEO: Well how can we make sure that our people are all doing what they should be doing?HR: A performance management system would let us align goals throughout the organization with our strategic goals.CEO: Perfect! Make it so. … some months later… CEO: So how is our new performance management system working out?HR: Just great! Feedback from managers has been very positive, the automated system has ensured that we don’t put extra workload on our managers and 99.7% of reviews are in on time.CEO: Great job. Sounds like the program has been a great success. And that’s my gripe with a writing assistant. A writing assistant is great for making the whole performance appraisal simpler to get through, but does it really do anything to improve the process? In fact, I would argue the complete opposite. Providing stock answers and template-based reviews actively reduces the quality of feedback - if you give managers an easy option you can be pretty sure they will take it, practically guaranteeing that they don’t take the time to busy themselves with the specifics of the employee in question. Now I’m not saying that making the process easier for the manager is fundamentally a bad idea. But it needs to be done in such a way that it is not detrimental to quality. For example, the performance blog included in ETWeb allows both managers and employees to maintain performance-relevant notes throughout the year. This significantly reduces the recency effect when review time comes around by allowing both sides to review their notes for the whole year. The key to this is making the process as painless as possible - the feature is available right where you need it, a single click, add a quick note and forget about it. Reduced effort, increased quality. So if I’m not a fan of features like writing assistants, why does there nonetheless seem to be demand for them? As already said, there is a temptation once a system is in place to focus on the system for the system’s sake. The other key driver however is legal compliance. This is something that is especially prevalent in the U.S. market due to its litigious nature. In this case, a documented legal trail may well be a very desirable thing. But if that’s the case, we shouldn’t be trying to slide it in under the cover of a performance management system. By implementing tools like writing assistants we seek to simplify the process at the expense of dumbing it down. Instead of fostering a culture of performance improvement we’re just paying lip service to the concept of performance management. And like my grandmother said, that’s not doing the job properly. So what do you think? Are writing assistants the way to go? ExecuTRACK product development is and always has been driven by its customers. We’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Posted: Friday, April 13, 2007 5:10 PM by n.reed Filed under: ETWeb, Performance Management [...]

]]> By: Total Talent Management - ExecuTRACK, A StepStone Company http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-27494 Total Talent Management - ExecuTRACK, A StepStone Company Fri, 13 Apr 2007 15:57:24 +0000 http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-27494 [...] Performance reviews - why easier isn't always better My grandmother used to say to me, if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing properly. But then again, Granny never gave me an annual performance appraisal (there was no pocket-money-for-performance in our house). Recently we have had several requests for a "writing assistant" as part of the performance management module in ETWeb. In fairness I must say, these requests have come mainly from prospects rather than existing customers. Now we all know how much managers hate doing performance reviews, it is just something that managers have to do. The goal of a "writing assistant" is to help managers formulate the individual appraisals. Tools or wizards are used to help generate the text of the appraisal based on input from the manager. This makes the whole process a lot easier for managers and leads to an improved performance management process. I'm not sure I agree. Sure, this makes the process easier for the manager in question but there is a reason why performance appraisals are hard - because managers need to think about them. Presumably there was a good business case for putting a performance management system in place (I'll leave that whole discussion for another day). The problem is, once that system's in place it seems to take on a life of its own. Subsequent actions are geared to making the performance process work, losing sight of the original goals. The typical conversation looks like this: CEO: We just don't seem to be as effective as our competition at executing our strategy.HR: Maybe our operational efficiency just isn't up to par. Or maybe it is, and we're just focusing time and effort in the wrong places.CEO: Well how can we make sure that our people are all doing what they should be doing?HR: A performance management system would let us align goals throughout the organization with our strategic goals.CEO: Perfect! Make it so. ... some months later... CEO: So how is our new performance management system working out?HR: Just great! Feedback from managers has been very positive, the automated system has ensured that we don't put extra workload on our managers and 99.7% of reviews are in on time.CEO: Great job. Sounds like the program has been a great success. And that's my gripe with a writing assistant. A writing assistant is great for making the whole performance appraisal simpler to get through, but does it really do anything to improve the process? In fact, I would argue the complete opposite. Providing stock answers and template-based reviews actively reduces the quality of feedback - if you give managers an easy option you can be pretty sure they will take it, practically guaranteeing that they don't take the time to busy themselves with the specifics of the employee in question. Now I'm not saying that making the process easier for the manager is fundamentally a bad idea. But it needs to be done in such a way that it is not detrimental to quality. For example, the performance blog included in ETWeb allows both managers and employees to maintain performance-relevant notes throughout the year. This significantly reduces the recency effect when review time comes around by allowing both sides to review their notes for the whole year. The key to this is making the process as painless as possible - the feature is available right where you need it, a single click, add a quick note and forget about it. Reduced effort, increased quality. So if I'm not a fan of features like writing assistants, why does there nonetheless seem to be demand for them? As already said, there is a temptation once a system is in place to focus on the system for the system's sake. The other key driver however is legal compliance. This is something that is especially prevalent in the U.S. market due to its litigious nature. In this case, a documented legal trail may well be a very desirable thing. But if that's the case, we shouldn't be trying to slide it in under the cover of a performance management system. By implementing tools like writing assistants we seek to simplify the process at the expense of dumbing it down. Instead of fostering a culture of performance improvement we're just paying lip service to the concept of performance management. And like my grandmother said, that's not doing the job properly. So what do you think? Are writing assistants the way to go? ExecuTRACK product development is and always has been driven by its customers. We'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Posted: Friday, April 13, 2007 5:10 PM by n.reed [...] [...] Performance reviews - why easier isn’t always better My grandmother used to say to me, if a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing properly. But then again, Granny never gave me an annual performance appraisal (there was no pocket-money-for-performance in our house). Recently we have had several requests for a “writing assistant” as part of the performance management module in ETWeb. In fairness I must say, these requests have come mainly from prospects rather than existing customers. Now we all know how much managers hate doing performance reviews, it is just something that managers have to do. The goal of a “writing assistant” is to help managers formulate the individual appraisals. Tools or wizards are used to help generate the text of the appraisal based on input from the manager. This makes the whole process a lot easier for managers and leads to an improved performance management process. I’m not sure I agree. Sure, this makes the process easier for the manager in question but there is a reason why performance appraisals are hard - because managers need to think about them. Presumably there was a good business case for putting a performance management system in place (I’ll leave that whole discussion for another day). The problem is, once that system’s in place it seems to take on a life of its own. Subsequent actions are geared to making the performance process work, losing sight of the original goals. The typical conversation looks like this: CEO: We just don’t seem to be as effective as our competition at executing our strategy.HR: Maybe our operational efficiency just isn’t up to par. Or maybe it is, and we’re just focusing time and effort in the wrong places.CEO: Well how can we make sure that our people are all doing what they should be doing?HR: A performance management system would let us align goals throughout the organization with our strategic goals.CEO: Perfect! Make it so. … some months later… CEO: So how is our new performance management system working out?HR: Just great! Feedback from managers has been very positive, the automated system has ensured that we don’t put extra workload on our managers and 99.7% of reviews are in on time.CEO: Great job. Sounds like the program has been a great success. And that’s my gripe with a writing assistant. A writing assistant is great for making the whole performance appraisal simpler to get through, but does it really do anything to improve the process? In fact, I would argue the complete opposite. Providing stock answers and template-based reviews actively reduces the quality of feedback - if you give managers an easy option you can be pretty sure they will take it, practically guaranteeing that they don’t take the time to busy themselves with the specifics of the employee in question. Now I’m not saying that making the process easier for the manager is fundamentally a bad idea. But it needs to be done in such a way that it is not detrimental to quality. For example, the performance blog included in ETWeb allows both managers and employees to maintain performance-relevant notes throughout the year. This significantly reduces the recency effect when review time comes around by allowing both sides to review their notes for the whole year. The key to this is making the process as painless as possible - the feature is available right where you need it, a single click, add a quick note and forget about it. Reduced effort, increased quality. So if I’m not a fan of features like writing assistants, why does there nonetheless seem to be demand for them? As already said, there is a temptation once a system is in place to focus on the system for the system’s sake. The other key driver however is legal compliance. This is something that is especially prevalent in the U.S. market due to its litigious nature. In this case, a documented legal trail may well be a very desirable thing. But if that’s the case, we shouldn’t be trying to slide it in under the cover of a performance management system. By implementing tools like writing assistants we seek to simplify the process at the expense of dumbing it down. Instead of fostering a culture of performance improvement we’re just paying lip service to the concept of performance management. And like my grandmother said, that’s not doing the job properly. So what do you think? Are writing assistants the way to go? ExecuTRACK product development is and always has been driven by its customers. We’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Posted: Friday, April 13, 2007 5:10 PM by n.reed [...]

]]> By: Praveen Jhurani http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-20147 Praveen Jhurani Thu, 15 Feb 2007 06:22:23 +0000 http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-20147 This is hillarious. After a looooonnngggg day of work, this really made my day. I really enjoyed this. Curious - With no reward and recognition opportunities, how does Santa keep his motivation level high? I think its the happiness and smiles he brings to everybody is his R and R. What an amazing job he has got.. to bring smiles on every one's faces and jolly good family time. This is hillarious. After a looooonnngggg day of work, this really made my day. I really enjoyed this.

Curious - With no reward and recognition opportunities, how does Santa keep his motivation level high?
I think its the happiness and smiles he brings to everybody is his R and R. What an amazing job he has got.. to bring smiles on every one’s faces and jolly good family time.

]]> By: Phil Gerbyshak http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-12906 Phil Gerbyshak Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:14:57 +0000 http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-12906 Very funny Wayne. Curious...if you were to fire Santa, who would fill his shoes? Hanukkah Harry? Kwanzaa Karl? I know...Festivus Fred! Happy holidays! Very funny Wayne. Curious…if you were to fire Santa, who would fill his shoes? Hanukkah Harry? Kwanzaa Karl? I know…Festivus Fred!

Happy holidays!

]]> By: The Toughest Performance Review - H.R. eSources http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-12855 The Toughest Performance Review - H.R. eSources Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:44:34 +0000 http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-12855 [...] The Cranky Middle Manager Show » Santa’s Performance Review [...] [...] The Cranky Middle Manager Show » Santa’s Performance Review [...]

]]> By: Santa’s Performance Rated http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-12629 Santa’s Performance Rated Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:59:17 +0000 http://cmm.thepodcastnetwork.com/2006/12/22/santas-performance-review/#comment-12629 [...] Whether you celebrate Christmas or not, you will enjoy this post. The always witty Wayne Turmel has done a performance appraisal of Santa. [...] [...] Whether you celebrate Christmas or not, you will enjoy this post. The always witty Wayne Turmel has done a performance appraisal of Santa. [...]

]]>