Performance Management

DEVELOPED BY

JCM CONSULTING INC.

© Clyde Johnson 1986, 89, 93, 94, 97, 98www.jcmconsulting.com

Problem Developing Your Own Program?

Managers would rather do nothingThey may want a system as close to nothing as they can find

Give managers what they need and should have, not what they think they want

Designers may list objectivity at he bottom of the wish listYou should not compare features of other programs if the paradigm does not make sense

•TO LET EMPLOYEE KNOW WHERE THEY STAND

•TO BASE PERSONNEL DECISIONS ON PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

•TO STRENGTHEN THE ORGANIZATION'S LEGAL POSITION

•TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE

Why Evaluate Performance....

INADEQUATELY DEFINED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

OVEREMPHASIS ON VERY RECENT OR DISTANT PERIODS OF PERFORMANCE

RELIANCE ON GUT FEELINGNO TIME OR FORMAT FOR DISCUSSION BETWEEN EMPLOYEE & SUPERVISOR

LACK OF FOLLOW-UP PLAN

COMMON ERRORS....

Choose Evaluation Paradigm

FluffForced RankingObjective BarsCompromised Bars

Fluff

EssayNo real standardsSame words for all jobs with same factorPoor or No weighting concept

Some but not all 360 EvaluationsPeer Group evaluation

Irrelevant Objectives

Employee determines objectivesMay related to a completely different jobMay be counterproductive

Objectives should be related to performance factors (components)

Forced Ranking

Who do you want in the life boatFire the bottom 10%

Major LawsuitsFordConocoMicrosoft

B A R S

Behaviorally Anchored Rating ScalesDefine of performance for each factor

Describe performance for each levelIdeally there should be five levels of performanceCould use different verbiage for each jobYou can change wording to meet current needs without effecting past records

Compromised Bars

Compromised BARS systemThe description for factors same for all jobsCan rate between factor levels with no description of the level of performance.Compare rating to other employeesObjectives separate from performance factors

Weighting by eliminationDoes not include all job performance factors

Why not use just one factor?

Constructive Dismissal

Keep secret notesNegative actions are recordedAll comments should be viewed by the employee

At the time of the incidentAt evaluation time

Objective Vs Subjective

StandardsEmployee InvolvementKnown to new employeesRelative WeightingEmployee Input

Open SystemEmployee Access

Significant IncidentProgress of Specific Goals & Objectives

Measure Performance DataTie actual performance data to performance standards

ESSAYPEER RANKING OR PEER EVALUATION360 DEGREE EVALUATIONSMULTIPLE EVALUATORSTRAIT (BEHAVIORS)QUANTIFIED FACTORSPRE-DEFINED STANDARDS (BARS)GOALS/OBJECTIVE SETTINGRELATIVE WEIGHTINGRANKING

EVALUATION TECHNIQUES..

HOW SHOULD IT WORK...

MULTIPLE EVALUATION TECHNIQUESEMPLOYEE/SUPERVISORY OWNERSHIP

SETTING THE PARAMETERS EVALUATION

JOB RELATED FACTORS ARE WEIGHTED FOR EACH JOB CATEGORY STANDARDS ARE TAILORED FOR EACH JOB

CATEGORYONGOING PROCESS

WHO SHOULD EVALUATE...

PRINCIPALS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS IMMEDIATE SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEE SELF-EVALUATION

MULTIPLE EVALUATORS GROUP MEETING AVERAGING

HOW OFTEN.....

AT LEAST ANNUALLYAT THE END OF THE FIRST 90 DAY PERIODSUPPLEMENTED WITH OPTIONAL ACTIONS TO MAKE THE PROCESS ONGOING

SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS GOALS/OBJECTIVES QUANTITY DATA

FAIRNESS AND EQUITY...

FACTORS SHOULD BE WEIGHTED AND STANDARDS TAILORED FOR EACH JOB CATEGORY

EMPLOYEES AND SUPERVISORS ARE INVOLVED IN:

SETTING THE PARAMETERS EVALUATING

SUPERVISOR'S RATINGS CHECKED FOR: CONSISTENCY FAIRNESS

SUPERVISOR/EMPLOYEE INTERACTIONS FACILITATED

ONGOING EVALUATION PROCESS

LEGAL VULNERABILITIES...

JOB RELATED

EMPLOYEE SIGN-OFF OF FACTORS, WEIGHTING, AND STANDARDS

INFORMAL "LEGAL" EVALUATIONS

ADVANCED PROCESS...PERFORMANCEFACTORS

LINKED TO

S I R Significant Incident Records

S P OSpecific Performance Objectives/Goals

Quantified Data

Enter Specific Performance

Objectives

S P O

Check for rater bias

Printout & Review Performance Report

With EmployeesEnter Significant Incidents

S I RTie pay to

performance

Enter Quantity Data

A S DSet goals and

objectivesS P O

Evaluate Performance

Create Job CategoriesSelect and Define Standards

Set Job Values

Flow Chart

Enter Employee Data & Map Management

Relationship

PLANNING...

SELECT RELEVANT FACTORSDETERMINE RELATIVE WEIGHT OF FACTORSESTABLISH STANDARDS

QUANTIFY FACTORS WHERE POSSIBLEESTABLISH LEVEL DEFINITIONS OF OTHERS

LINKED TO INDIVIDUAL FACTORS ENTER ONLINE OR MANUAL FORMON-SITE EVALUATION OF INCIDENT IN TERMS OF FACTORS

EMPLOYEE SIGN-OFFEMPLOYEE RETAINS A COPYSUMMARY IS USED IN PERIODIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

S I RSIGNIFICANT INCIDENT RECORD

LINKED TO INDIVIDUAL FACTORSFRAMEWORK FOR EMPLOYEE GOALSENTER ONLINE OR MANUAL FORMDESIRED OUTCOMES DESCRIBEDUSED AS PART OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS TO DETERMINE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE

USED DURING PERFORMANCE REVIEW TO INDICATE SPECIFICALLY THE ACTION NEEDED TO REACH A HIGHER LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE FOR A SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE FACTOR

S P OSpecific Performance Objective

•A Snapshot of performance linked to individual factors

•Conduct on a pre-agreed time table•Series of positive bias questions•Data entered into PEP program•Results used in the periodic evaluation of quantified factors

SURVEY

Quantity Lit

SIR Lit

SPO Lit

Overall ScorePercent of perfectOne to five

Blueprint for improvementSuccess FactorsEmployee needsNotes

Report

Page 3 top

POSITIVE LENIENCYBASED ON EXPECTATIONS

NEGATIVE LENIENCYNOBODY IS PERFECT

CENTRAL TENDENCYTO AVOID EXTREME POSITIONS

HORNS/HALO EFFECTA SINGLE TRAIT EFFECTS RATER'S JUDGEMENT

WEAK TEAM MEMBERSHIPENDS UP WITH LOWER RATING

EFFECT OF PAST RECORDWORK TENDS TO CARRY OVER INTO LATER PERIODS

WHAT IS RATER BIAS....

FRONT-END PLANNINGMULTIPLE EVALUATION TECHNIQUESSUPERVISOR/EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENTJOB RELATED FACTORSFACTORS, WEIGHTS, AND STANDARDS TAILORED FOR EACH JOB CLASSIFICATION

QUANTIFYING FACTORSEMPLOYEE SIGN-OFF ON JOB PARAMETERSCOMPUTERS USED TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESSREPORTS GENERATED TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING

SUMMARY.....

CALL 801-322-3700FOR MORE INFORMATION

SUCCESS...

ReferenceSnyderville.pdf