Managers Who Suffocate Stars...

You've seen it before - the manager who likes to keep everything under their control.  They want to check off on all decisions and have a tendency to be the one to communicate all good news upward in the organization, which makes a lot of onlookers think they love to take credit for OPW (Other People's Work).

That might be true, but I usually think something else is at play.

I think that manager is scared.  Scared about the upward mobility of those they manage.  A little insecure about their abilities.  And most of all, unsure if they can compete in the marketplace of innovation.

Direct report showing some initiative and innovating?  For most of us, we celebrate, pushing the emails detailing the results and innovation around the organization as a means of recognition - and promotion.  It's our job to tell the world we have great people working for us who are capable of great things.

The scared manager?  No such communication happens.  Maybe it's been awhile since they viewed their business or function with a fresh set of eyes.  Maybe they're capable of innovation, but have decided to mail it in.   Maybe they're just scared that they don't have "it" anymore.

So they don't celebrate the success of their employees.  They don't promote.  They don't view themselves as a talent agent.  They're a bureaucrat.

And they're dangerous to any organization that wants to grow.   

Sometimes the Right Choice Is to Fire the Manager...

As a topic, firing a manager has easy scenarios and hard scenarios.  Just so we can be clear what we are talking about, let's first talk about all the times when it MIGHT be an easy call to fire a manager:

1.  When the manager is abusive to their team and is a walking liability;

2.  When the manager has had tons of ramp up time, but still doesn't understand the business and therefore can't generate the expected level of business results; or

3.  When the sales/stats aren't there over time, and you've done everything you can to allow them to address the performance issues for their function as a whole.

Are there other scenarios that make it an easy call?  I'm sure.  Is every situation different and, at times, more complex than these simple scenarios?  Absolutely...

Here's the harder scenario.  When do you make a call to remove a manager who has had great results in the past, but might be struggling recently to meet the bar/expectations they have created for themselves?

Case in point - in pro basketball, Avery Johnson of the Dallas Mavericks was fired after a first round loss in the 2008 playoffs.  A respected former player, Johnson actually took Dallas to the NBA Finals in 2006, had the league's best record in 2007 (but had a first round playoff loss that year), then worked to make the playoffs in a loaded Western Conference in 2008 before exiting in the first round again.

So Avery was successful, but got cut loose because he wasn't successful enough.  When is it the right time to cut loose a successful manager who has struggled recently?  Here's my working list:

1.  When the manager in question has a distinctive style that, over time, employees tune out.  I'm thinking the Bobby Knights of the business world.  The screamers, the object throwers, etc.  The intensity seems to work for awhile, but if that's all there is, employees ultimately get burned out over time.

2.  If business conditions change, but the manager's not flexible enough to change his focus.  In this scenario, the manager has lots of success early on with specific tactics, but then conditions change and new tactics are called for.  The manager had success with the old tactics, so he/she keeps using those and refuses to adapt.

3.  If the organization invests in a talent upgrade, but the manager can't motivate top tier talent to get to the next level.  In this scenario, the manager had great success with lower level talent.  To take the organization to the next level, the company provides a talent upgrade, but the results stay the same.   

4.  If the manager ceases to be motivated by the current opportunity.  Over time, interest in the current role can fade, even for a professional manager with a great track record.  Sometimes change is the best thing for everyone.

I think there are a variety of scenarios when a change is the best thing for a manager and a company alike.  To keep things fresh and have a long term career with a single company in today's world, managers have to stay alert and reinvent themselves every 2-3 years - to show value to the company, but also to keep the current opportunity fresh from their own perspective.

And that's easy to say, hard to do.

Are Frontline Employees Fully Expendable? Isn't the "Same" really "Lame"?

If you've ever worked in a retail or consumer call center situation, odds are you've seen some employee turnover.  Depending on pay levels, the specific industry, and local economic conditions, it's not unusual to see annualized turnover at 100% in those sectors.

As HR Pros, we're conditioned that high turnover is never acceptable.  Most of us take it personally.

Is it possible, depending on the conditions you face (pay levels, industry and the local ecomomy), that you shouldn't take high turnover as a personal challenge as a HR Pro?  Additionally, if you don't invest much in the upfront training of those associates, have you made a business decision that high turnover is OK?

More on the value of high entry-level turnover from the Workforce Institute:

"Unless your Unique Selling Proposition (USP) or point of difference is Exceptional Customer Service (like Nordstrom, BMW, Ritz Carlton, and the Container Store), there’s no reason to sweat it when you lose frontline employees. Most likely, they were not that good anyway because, truth be told, you haven’t invested a lot of money in your hourly hires and even the training you provided, if any, didn’t cost much. In fact, their replacements will probably be just as good and may be even better than those you lose. New employees are excited about their new jobs and will probably have a better attitude and try harder - at least for the first three-to-six months. On top of this, employee turnover will probably reduce your labor costs because you won’t have to fund any benefit programs for a while. And there’s no need to worry if the new hire doesn’t know very much because the customers don’t expect them to know much when customer service is not your USP. You may even want to have new people wear a button that says: “I’m new. Please help me help you.”

It's an interesting take, and hard to deny the investment piece.  If you don't invest much in service-oriented new hires, have you already made your choice from business perspective.  Should you be pointing that out as an HR Pro?

Still, it's hard as a consumer, who is also an HR Pro, to let go of the fact that exceptional service is important.  Thoughts?  Should business be giving up on entry-level turnover, or should they be fighting to be memorable?

I guess it depends on the business plan - and how you plan to make money...

Steve Roesler - Performance Management and Change Truthteller....

Have you seen the work of Steve Roesler at All Things Workplace?  If not, you need to check it out.

Here's the 3-second elevator speech on what Steve does in his practice:  He specializes in communication training and development with an emphasis on improving systems, relationships, and large-scale change.

He's also a deep thinker about the elements of his practice, which is reflected in his blog.  It's a must read for me, even if Steve goes deeper into his niche than I feel like I have time for on certain days.

Of course, that's not his problem, that's mine...

The reason I read it is because he's good.  Case in point, this post reminding me that if you try and spare someone's feelings from a performance perspective, you may be hurting the long-term viability of their career.  Read the whole post here, and here's a clip:

"There is an admirable and desirable human tendency to not want to hurt other people. Thankfully.

At the same time, there seems to be a misunderstanding about what is hurtful and what is helpful. Wouldn't you think that a career filled with performance appraisals  might have surfaced this earlier?

Let's face it: in addition to not wanting to hurt someone's feelings, we also don't want to be seen as ogres. So we often hold back the part of the information that is the most serious and, therefore, potentially the most helpful.

Ask yourself this: Who in your life do you trust the most? The people who give you mostly 'yeses' or the people who say 'no' and then explain why?"

Read the whole thing.  If I ever need an executive coach (does that mean I have to be an executive first?), I'm asking my company to call Steve.

Steve - thanks for the great work and the reminder.  I'm skilled enough to deliver this type of news with directness and compassion.  Thanks for reminding me that's my responsibility....

Square Peg, Round Hole - Can The Traditional Organization Afford to Focus on Strengths?

Is performance management upside down in Corporate America?  Here are a couple of quick observations:

1.  Jobs are structured for the company, not the employee.  I'm not saying that's wrong, just outlining the facts.

2.  90% of the time we spend talking about performance is about how to manage negative variance.

3.  We don't spend a lot of the time evaluating how we can continue to maximize a person's strengths.  We'll tell them they are doing great, give them an "exceeds", then move on to how they can improve their "areas of opportunity". 

4.  The combination of those competencies that create "jobs", are pretty inflexible in corporate America.

With that in mind, it should come as no shock that while we love to read books like "Now Discover Your Strengths" and nod accordingly when discussing, we pretty much go back to the coal mine and expect people to fit in the traditional spaces we've defined.

Scott McArthur recently talked about the power of positive, strength-based psychology in the workplace.  From the sweet rundown at McArthur's Rant:

"Positive psychology suggests that by focusing on people’s strengths rather than on their development needs we can transform wellness at work and as a consequence improve organizational performance.

The notion behind the work that is being done under the banner of Positive Psychology is to enhance our experiences of love, work and play and by doing so encourage wellbeing. This is in contrast to the traditional ways of thinking in both psychology and business where the focus is on finding what isn't working and trying to fix it.

Techniques such as Appreciative Enquiry and Strength finders (Gallup) as well as writers such as Csikszentmihalyi in Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience have been extolling the value of adopting this approach for some time. In Gallup’s case they have produced some strong statistical evidence that it works.."

Scott acknowledges in his post that while focusing on employee strengths is a powerful tool, it's problematic for the traditional organization to figure out how to do it.

Here's my take.  The power of focusing on strengths in corporate America is probably best used in a combination of performance management and engagement.  The smart managers know that they can't adjust a role to fit the employee's strengths with a 100% match.  But with the right amount of praise, coaching and organizational flexibility, they can create an environment where the employee understands that the more efficient they are in their formal job, the more they can chase what they really love to do, and maybe even innovate and create stuff on the way.

And that would be a pretty cool thing... 

Big Bonuses - Good For Driving Everyday Performance?

Do Big Bonuses drive performance and behavior in general?  I've always broken this question up into two camps: the sales and non-sales camp. 

First, the easy one - Sales.  We can split hairs and argue whether commission to salespeople is a bonus or part of an incentive plan that's expected, but isn't that what bonus plans are supposed to do - drive behavior?  For me, the sales angle is the purest play in bonus and incentive pay.  You make enough sales, you get paid for your performance, usually monthly, which is also key. 

The harder call for me is for non-sales positions.  A big bonus is certainly attractive and desired by all of us in the workforce.  The real issue for me is the timing of the bonus and how the plan is structured.  Is it monthly, quarterly or annual in nature?  My guess is that most companies still work on the concept of the annual bonus, and most let company performance drive the majority of the payout. 

A focus on an annual payout, based on company-wide performance, seems pretty macro to me, meaning while it's expected and desired, it may not drive day-to-day performance of non-sales types, with the exception of causing employees to be careful spending money.

More from Paul Hebert at Incentive Intelligence:

"Here's the I2 spin - if the bonus is sufficiently large, participants in the program will behave in a way that reduces their risk of failure thereby reducing their desire to work in a way that might cause that failure.  In other words they start working much more "safely."  They start to think about each individual step in the process, instead of getting into the "flow" of the process where work becomes fluid and easy.  Too big a bonus and the idea of trying something "new" goes out the window in favor of the tried and true.  A pretty big problem today where innovation is the new black.

Therefore, if the bonus is big enough, the participant actually increases their chance of missing the goal by increasing their focus on not failing.  Counterintuitive, eh?

The key point in this is that there is a balance between the objective and the reward.  We need to look at business performance problems from a behavior point of view and not a results point of view. 

Break down the chain of behaviors that lead to a result and rewarding ongoing mastery of the few important behaviors in that chain - with smaller, more frequent rewards.  This will allow participants to focus on those important few things.

I agree with Paul's analysis, and think the best thing to do to truly engage non-sales professionals with a bonus program is to make it monthly in nature.  That would keep everything laser-focused.

Of course, the reason sales commission can be monthly is because it's the one area where performance is unquestioned.  You either made the sale or you didn't.

Measurement can be very messy for the rest of your key spots in the company.  The one set of numbers that never lies for the rest of the company?  Revenue and Cash Flow.  The combination of measurement being problematic and Revenue and Cash Flow being king means the annual bonus is probably here to stay for the rest of us....

Dropping Some Science - the Merit Matrix...

Ever had someone ask you for a reasoned explanation of pay for performance and the standard merit matrix?  I think I do a pretty good job of explaning it, but the esteemed Ann Bares of Compensation Force rocks out this topic over at her site.  Check it out and throw the link into a folder.  I guarentee you'll use it in the future.

Ann's nickname - "The Foundation" - she's solid....

I can't resist the tease with a quick chart from Ann's post.  See below and click through....

Starting Quickly - The Holy Grail of Performance.....

Anyone out there have a secret for getting a team to start quickly?  In the workplace?  On a baseball field?  Anyone?  Bueller?...

I've got two sons.  I coach their baseball teams.  My oldest is 7 now, and I've learned that's the time that youth baseball leagues start getting competitive (I know, 7!...).  My 7 year old's team had a good start to their season, winning their first two games.  Then we came out late last week, and..... STARTED SLOW....

It was 8-1 before they knew the game had started....

You've seen it before with important projects, with individual employees in your workplace, and of course, in every team sport.  The goal is to win (or to perform at a high level), and everybody gets that.  You've laid out the goals, practiced the skills you need, and talked about the importance of starting quickly.

Then the lights go on, and your team/employees have zero momentum.  They are behind from the start, which history tells us dramatically reduces the chances of winning, however defined. 

The first inning of the game, the first 3 months of your job, doesn't matter.  Start slow, and you are in trouble...

Let me know if you have a surefire way to ensure fast starts - on the baseball field or in the workplace.  Shock therapy and going Bob Knight proponents need not apply....

Bill Lumburgh on Praise in the Workplace.....

Made you look!  Don't be afraid, Bill Lumburgh hasn't bounced from Innotech and emerged on the management guru scene to tell you how to coach up the Peter Gibbons-types of the world. 

Instead, Bill Lumburgh has left that to the professionals.  One of my favorites, in the management development space on the net, is Wally Bock.  I like Wally because he's a no-nonsense kind of guy, and understands that some of the best time spent, on developing your management team, is related to providing them coaching skills.

Wally also gets that coaching isn't just identifying gaps and coaching for improvement.  It's also being effective at praising your employees when appropriate.

From Wally Bock's 3-Star Leadership:

"Just understanding why praise is important and powerful is not enough. You only get the benefits when you do the job right. Here are some guidelines.

Praise should be tied to clear expectations and performance standards. Without these praise has no context or meaning.

Praise should only be given for something praiseworthy. Don't praise just to praise. Praise behavior, including effort. Praise excellent performance or performance improvement.

Praise should be appropriate. Most of the time a simple "good job" is all that's needed. More significant things might merit an email, a handwritten note, or something more formal or public.

Good stuff.  To Wally's point, most of us under use praise in our coaching models.  Check out the rest of Wally's notes on praise by clicking through.  Most importantly, don't coach while holding a coffee cup or intro every component of coaching and praise with the familiar, "yeahhhhhhhh"....

AC/DC as HR Philosophers - When It Comes to Salary Ranges, Money Talks, BS Walks...

Sometimes the best wisdom is found in AC/DC songs.  For example - If you rock, I'm going to salute you.  That's just the way it is..

Of course, money talks and BS walks.  Especially when it comes to compensation philosophies..

Ann Bares has a nice rundown up focused on the pros and cons of compensation broadbanding.  For those of you who haven't heard of the term before, broadbanding is defined by World at Work as "a pay structure that consolidates a large number of pay grades and salary ranges into much fewer broad bands with relatively wide salary ranges, typically with 100% or more difference between minimum and maximum."

I know - your eyes are glazed over already, right?  Who cares?  Where's the AC/DC clip?

Here's why I wanted to post a reaction.  I've been in one organization where Broadbanding was attempted.  Like cavier and classical music, broadbanding sounds very progressive and high-end, until you try and use it as a HR professional.  Then it all falls apart and you end up "fixing the system" to get the very tools you disposed of.  From Ann's rundown:

"By collapsing a pay structure into fewer, wider salary bands, at least in the "pure" sense of broadbanding, an organization effectively gives up the control point (midpoint) of a traditional salary range.  That is because the broad band does not represent appropriate pay for a job, but rather for an entire class of work (such as "managerial" or "advanced professional").  This is a critical shift to bear in mind because the result is a pay system that is no longer job-based, but rather person-based.  No longer do we set and manage pay opportunity by the level and attributes of a job, but rather by the skill, competency and performance of an individual - within a broader "range" established to represent the value of a broader class of work."

That sounds sweet - until you start to attempt to make value calls on candidates or value individual jobs in an organization.  As Ann points out, you need midpoints and specific ranges for both activities.  If you have an external candidate who is pushing the envelope regarding salary needs, the tradtional range and midpoint (as long as they are based on accurate and current data) give you a feel for what's real, and what's overvalued. 

The same holds true when it comes to valuing jobs in an organization.  As an HR Pro, or a manager running a division, you have to know what the market bears for the specific positions in your organization.  Otherwise you are going to look up in 3 years and have an absolute mess on your hands, with limited mobility for all, because entry points to an organization weren't based on market data.  As a result, you hired a VP of Marketing as a Marketing Rep.  Then the new boss arrived, only to find a subordinate two levels down was making more than her boss, and was uncomfortably close to the VP's.

So give me the standard "rock and roll" over the classical music that is broadbanding.  After all, Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution.

Company Monitoring of Email - If You're Firing Someone for Excessive Use, the Problem is Probably You....

By now, you've probably seen the strands of a survey by the AMA floating around the Internet, suggesting that most employers are terminating people based on their use of the Internet.  In case you haven't seen the study, let me save you some time by offering up the clips you need to know.

"The 28% of employers who have fired workers for e-mail misuse did so for the following reasons:  violation of any company policy (64%); inappropriate or offensive language (62%); excessive personal use (26%); breach of confidentiality rules (22%); other (12%).

The 30% of bosses who have fired workers for Internet misuse cite the following reasons: viewing, downloading, or uploading inappropriate/offensive content (84%); violation of any company policy (48%); excessive personal use (34%); other (9%).

Employers are primarily concerned about inappropriate Web surfing, with 66% monitoring Internet connections. Fully 65% of companies use software to block connections to inappropriate Websites—a 27% increase since 2001 when AMA/ePolicy Institute first surveyed electronic monitoring and surveillance policies and procedures. Employers who block access to the Web are concerned about employees visiting adult sites with sexual, romantic, or pornographic content (96%); game sites (61%); social networking sites (50%); entertainment sites (40%); shopping/auction sites (27%); and sports sites (21%). In addition, companies use URL blocks to stop employees from visiting external blogs (18%)."

So those are the numbers.  Some of it I get and support, but a lot of it smacks of items that are sooo yesterday.

First up, I get that email is a conversation, so any idea and language that you put out there is subject to all the policies that you have in your handbook.  That's good.  Professional conduct, harassment policies, etc. are all applicable to what you put out there in email.  That's the way it should be.  Whether someone gets a warning, or is terminated for email or web browsing related to these items, depends on a lot of factors, such as severity and past history.

Here's my big pain point.  If you are terminating someone for excessive use of the Internet, you probably haven't done your job from a performance management standpoint.  Stop me if you've heard this one before.  Sally's performance is lacking.  Sally's manager comes to you indicating every time he walks by Sally's cube, she's on Facebook.  Sally's manager wants to pull reports for that "gotcha" moment.

Is your next question "How's Sally's performance?"  Once you're told that the performance is less than stellar, is question number two a derivative of "Tell me about the conversations you have had with Sally about her performance?"

My strong belief - excessive Internet use isn't a policy issue, it's a performance issue.  There's a lot of variability across managers as to the definition of "excessive".  Good luck defending the consistency issues there.

And don't even get me started about the wisdom of blocking entire categories.  Dirty sites are an obvious one, but do you really want to block social networks where you can pick up candidate referrals?  Blogs as an entire category? 

That's crazy talk.  Manage what's "appropriate" in Internet use by managing performance.

Can Incentives Be Used If You Aren't Ready to Fire Someone?

Paul Hebert, my go-to-guy for all things incentive in this world, has a great post up at Incentive Intelligence about the types of things for which you should provide incentives. 

From PH's post:

"Incentives have two poles - rewards and punishment.  I can move your behavior based on providing an incentive or I can punish you for non-performance.   If you don't do what I want - there will be negative consequences.

I was wondering if this idea of opposing sides to incentives could be used to test the validity of an incentive and reward structure?  What if we re-frame the rules using the negative - and see if it still makes sense? 

If you wouldn't punish someone for missing a goal then maybe you shouldn't reward the same goal."

Think through that for a moment, and you'll find the exercise is more difficult than you think.  For example, Paul uses the concept of making a sale in his post as a basis for incentives.  We provide incentives for sales all the time.  Paul uses the test logic "Make a sale today (use this week/month depending on the cycle times for your product) or you're fired".

Would you make that blanket statement?  Probably not.  To Paul's point, there are too many things involved to let someone go, based on non-performance over a short period of time.

But that brings me pretty quickly to the related topic of performance management.  If you read this site, you know I am pretty strong-headed about doing performance management off a 3-point scale (Exceeds, Meets or Does Not Meet) rather than a 5 or 7-point scale.

The reason?  Simplicity, my friends.  I can bring an expert like Paul into the organization to assist me with structuring incentives.  But, the best way I can think of to make sure I get "bang for my buck" is to tie the incentive, even if it is short-term, to the "Exceeds" level of performance.  In that fashion, I'm using a short term incentive to reinforce how high the bar is to be an "Exceeds" performer.

That feeds the culture of performance, which is the goal of upstream incentive programs.  The danger is that you set the bar low enough that "Meets" performers get the carrot.  It's cool to be a "Meets", but incentives should be there for those who exceed and deliver extra.

The more people who get that, the better the performance of your organization.

What's That Smell? Self Assessments & Performance Management

As an individual who recently revamped a performance management system from the old subjective system (everyone gets the same 80 items, rank on a scale of 1 to 5) to one driven by cascading goals driving individual objectives across the organization, I've had a lot of time to ponder things in the performance management space.  One thing I have ran into is the value of allowing employees to evaluate themselves as part of the process (Self-Evaluations!!)....

Now, I don't want go all Dennis Miller and get off on a rant here, but the prospect of self-evaluations is more riddled with holes than the final season of the Sopranos.

Here's why I don't like Self Evaluations:

1.  There is always a gap between real and perceived performance, and the gap is always largest with your lowest performing employees.  Poor performers lack the skills to perform - which are the same skills required to evaluate their performance. They don’t understand that they don’t understand, and so believe their abilities compare positively to their peers.  The Success Factors Blog plots this out with research to back it up... See the chart below from their site as well....

2.  Self Assessments set up managers who struggle with performance management to fail unnecessarily.  Your inexperienced managers already have a hard time with conflict, so you take your garden variety self-assessment (the one that allows the employees to have the first crack before receiving the feedback of the manager) and automatically your manager is boxed in a deep corner of conflict.  What is he/she to do?  Go after the perceived gaps and really drive home their point of view with multiple specifics?  Or just give in, offer up a few comments, give the employee 75% of what they wanted, and live to fight another day?  Better to allow the manager to drive the process with their thoughts before the employee has a chance to frame the conversation.  Self-Assessment afterwords, OK - Self Assessment before, not so good...

3.  Self Assessments are often crutches for managers with poor writing skills.  I literally had a manager just offer up the objective-based system to an employee, then turn it in as his own work.  I called the employee (happens to be a manager of people working for a Director) and said, "You wrote your own review didn't you?"  To which the employee responded "I did the self assessment part and I think ____ took most of my recommendations.  If you look at the last sentence of each section where the grammar changes (she meant where the grammar became very poor), you'll be able to see his comments".  Nice... what more can I say?

4.  Most employees confuse behavior and performance that "meets" expectations as "exceeding" expectations.  Called all your customers?  Got all the transactions that are a part of your job complete?  Darn, that is just plain "Exceeds"...(I'm Joking).  Most employees have the opinion that if they knock out the major components of their job, they are exceeding.  That's incorrect - the progressive view of performance management suggests that employees need to innovate and add value in other ways to truly "Exceed"  Want to know what happens with weak managers when a "Meets" employee turns in a self-evaluation that rates themselves as an "Exceeds"?   See #2 - they fold without the help of a competent partner on the Human Capital team...

Exceptions to my observations - if you use self assessments as part of a well tuned 360 degree feedback program, the self rating probably has the proper rating and is effectively counter-balanced by the non-manager feedback of others.  Of course, 360 degree feedback programs have their own set of issues, and I'll leave the pro/con breakdown of that for another day.

Bottom line - unless your org is a well-oiled performance management machine, leave the self assessment on the shelf.  Your managers won't overcome it...

Of course, like Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

As an individual who recently revamped a performance management system from the old subjective system (everyone gets the same 80 items, rank on a scale of 1 to 5) to one driven by cascading goals driving individual objectives across the organization, I've had a lot of time to ponder things in the performance management space.  One thing I have ran into is the value of allowing employees to evaluate themselves as part of the process (Self-Evaluations!!)....

Now, I don't want go all Dennis Miller and get off on a rant here, but the prospect of self-evaluations is more riddled with holes than the final season of the Sopranos.

Here's why I don't like Self Evaluations:

1.  There is always a gap between real and perceived performance, and the gap is always largest with your lowest performing employees.  Poor performers lack the skills to perform - which are the same skills required to evaluate their performance. They don’t understand that they don’t understand, and so believe their abilities compare positively to their peers.  The Success Factors Blog plots this out with research to back it up... See the chart below from their site as well....

2.  Self Assessments set up managers who struggle with performance management to fail unnecessarily.  Your inexperienced managers already have a hard time with conflict, so you take your garden variety self-assessment (the one that allows the employees to have the first crack before receiving the feedback of the manager) and automatically your manager is boxed in a deep corner of conflict.  What is he/she to do?  Go after the perceived gaps and really drive home their point of view with multiple specifics?  Or just give in, offer up a few comments, give the employee 75% of what they wanted, and live to fight another day?  Better to allow the manager to drive the process with their thoughts before the employee has a chance to frame the conversation.  Self-Assessment afterwords, OK - Self Assessment before, not so good...

3.  Self Assessments are often crutches for managers with poor writing skills.  I literally had a manager just offer up the objective-based system to an employee, then turn it in as his own work.  I called the employee (happens to be a manager of people working for a Director) and said, "You wrote your own review didn't you?"  To which the employee responded "I did the self assessment part and I think ____ took most of my recommendations.  If you look at the last sentence of each section where the grammar changes (she meant where the grammar became very poor), you'll be able to see his comments".  Nice... what more can I say?

4.  Most employees confuse behavior and performance that "meets" expectations as "exceeding" expectations.  Called all your customers?  Got all the transactions that are a part of your job complete?  Darn, that is just plain "Exceeds"...(I'm Joking).  Most employees have the opinion that if they knock out the major components of their job, they are exceeding.  That's incorrect - the progressive view of performance management suggests that employees need to innovate and add value in other ways to truly "Exceed"  Want to know what happens with weak managers when a "Meets" employee turns in a self-evaluation that rates themselves as an "Exceeds"?   See #2 - they fold without the help of a competent partner on the Human Capital team...

Exceptions to my observations - if you use self assessments as part of a well tuned 360 degree feedback program, the self rating probably has the proper rating and is effectively counter-balanced by the non-manager feedback of others.  Of course, 360 degree feedback programs have their own set of issues, and I'll leave the pro/con breakdown of that for another day.

Bottom line - unless your org is a well-oiled performance management machine, leave the self assessment on the shelf.  Your managers won't overcome it...

Of course, like Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Confused About Who's Engaged? Try This Handy Engagement Test to Sort It All Out...

My posts last week regarding the concept of engagement and subsequent research on the topic clarified a couple of things to me. 

-First, trying to get everyone to agree on a definition of engagment is harder than trying to get Britney Spears to settle down and work it all out with K-Fed.   

-Second, my take on the best way to have an engaged workforce is to a) ensure you hire talent that is already predisposed to be engaged, and b) figure out the best way to create an environment where "engagement fence straddlers" (those who might be engaged if placed in the right type of environment) elect to become engaged...

Of course, being the scientific, progressive manager you are, you want a way to baseline the current engagement level of your team before you start tinkering with the environment.   WOW - you are an achiever, and if I might add, an engaged one at that...

At the risk of being savagely attacked by the engagement community, here's my back of the napkin, "let's wing it" test to determine the engagment level of your current team:

1.  Tell your team that if they can find a way to get their current workload complete in less time, you would like to support the use of 4 hours per week at work to pursue any work-related, professional development project that interests them.  The only rules are that the project has to be work-related and potentially have a payoff to the business - but if the process leads to them developing new skills that adds value to them as professionals, so be it.

2.  Answer your team's questions about what is appropriate related to the project.  You might also get questions about how you will measure whether their current workload is being maintained.  Answer all questions to the best of your ability, without telling them how to do it.

3.  Once you've answered all the questions, don't do anything for 3 weeks.

4.  At the 3 week mark, check back in with everyone on your team in brief 1-on-1 sessions.  Have they started the project time?  What are they working on?

Here's how to score your findings:

-Associates who have taken advantage of your offer and are aggresively moving forward with a project - ENGAGED

-Associates who have developed some thoughts about what they might do, but have not taken action yet - NOT ENGAGED, BUT POSSIBLY COULD BECOME ENGAGED WITH THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL TWEAKS FROM YOU

-Associates who have done nothing, or have excuses for why they didn't take advantage of the offer - NOT ENGAGED AND NOT PROBABLE TO BECOME ENGAGED, regardless of your efforts.

Remember, this is only a test, and an informal one at that.  You might actually have to start being engaged yourself to create the environment where your direct reports are engaged.  One of the things I learned from the engagement community is that according to Gallup, on average, 29% of employees are engaged and 71% are either unengaged (neutral) or disengaged (opposed).

PS - my take on this as a nice informal test of engagement is based on the engagement traits listed in this post...

How many members of your team would you expect to take the offer and run with it? 

Just as important - Would you? 

I Just Tried to Define Employee Engagement - Now I Need a Nap...

I thought a follow-up post was needed regarding "The Key to Employee Engagement - Don't Hire Clock Watchers". 

Point #1 - I obviously stirred up a hornet's nest by talking about engagement without trying to define it for the syndicated audience (note - you can have one reader on feedburner and call it syndicated - cool!); 

Point #2 - I browsed around looking to define employee engagement, and as a result;

Point #3 - I now need a nap. 

WOW!  Was that some painful reading.  Not since a Fortune 500 corporate team I was on in the 90's came together to deal with the OFCCP required, "Definition of an Applicant", have so many said so much, yet so little.

zzzzzzz....zzzzzzzz.....zzzzzzz

OK, I'm back.   Lucky for me, one of the emails I received was from a guy who actually understands the different definitions.  His name is Tim Wright, of Wright Results (aptly named).  Tim's spent enough time thinking about engagement that he can actually compare and contrast engagement theories.   Spend 10 minutes googling "employee engagement" and you'll understand why that's significant.

For a great rundown of employee engagement theories, hit Tim's blog here.

I had two favorite definitions from Tim's post.  The Gallup G12, and Tim's own definition of engagement. 

Here's the Gallup G12, which lists traits of engaged employees:

• Consistent levels of high performance.
• Natural innovation and drive for efficiency.
• Intentional building of supportive relationships.
• Clear about the desired outcomes of their role.
• Emotionally committed to what they do.
• Challenge purpose to achieve goals.
• High energy and enthusiasm.
• Never run out of things to do, create positive things to act on.
• Broaden what they do and build on it.
• Commitment to company, work group, and role.

Here's Tim Wright's definition:

The individual’s investment of energy, skill, ability, and eagerness in the work performed. Engagement includes “involvement” and “commitment” yet goes beyond to include observable behaviors such as:

• Attention to task detail
• Commitment to assignment completion
• Involvement in special projects
• Communication willingly, effectively with others
• Demonstration of personal/professional improvement
• Initiation of problem-solving and/or conflict resolution
• Innovation regarding processes and procedures

I bolded the characteristics that closely matched my (cough) unscientific definition.  In any event, these two trait-based definitions were, by far, better than anything else I found.

Hit Tim's web site to learn more.  He's apparently pursuing a practice revolving around employee engagement, which makes him a) brilliant, b) a masochist, or c) both.

Check it out and answer that question for yourself....

The Limitations of Succession Planning - Nirvana and the Foo Fighters....

I'm in a rock and roll kind of mood today.  As a card-carrying member of GenX, I grew up buying flannel shirts for nights out, which means the whole "grunge" scene was driving my fashion sense in college.   Looking back, all I was missing was a thick beard and I could have been a double on the set of Grizzly Adams.  Good times, but it was hard to look like you were having fun with all the angst in those grunge lyrics.

Over the weekend, I had two rock experiences.  First, we finally broke out Guitar Hero for the Xbox, which was a Christmas gift for my sons.   After handling Barracuda on "easy" mode, my wife and I headed to the arena for the Jimmy Eat World/Foo Fighters show, which was a blast.  From a wellness perspective, it was cool to see that holding up your lighter has been replaced almost entirely by holding up the LED screen of the wireless device of your choice. 

One connection to my GenX/grunge days from the night out was Foo Fighters founder Dave Grohl.  Grohl hit the rock/grunge scene in 1991 as the drummer for Nirvana, the band that has remained as icon for everything related to grunge.  At the time Nirvana was popular, Grohl was an afterthought, dramatically overshadowed by lead singer Kurt Cobain, and his crazy wife, Courtney Love. 

Like a big corporation with a famous CEO, Nirvana rocked on and changed the music scene for a couple of years, until the equivalent of the Nirvana CEO, Cobain, committed suicide amidst a struggle with depression and dependency.  The band dissolved, minus the leader who had defined them as an organization.  Grohl and the other surviving member of the band, Chris Novoselic (bass), went their separate ways.  No succession plan there...

Over time, Novoselic and Grohl started bands organizations on their own.  Novoselic's fizzled, but Grohl's project caught fire, with the Foo Fighters ultimately releasing 6 CD's since 1995 and being widely regarded as one of the best rock bands/brands active today.

My point - and there is one - is that Grohl was widely regarded as an afterthought in the initial flagship he contributed to (Nirvana).  Overshadowed in life and death by Cobain, Grohl used his skills to reshape his post-Nirvana career and develop an organization/brand deeper, more diversified and ultimately more successful than Nirvana. 

So the moral of the story is this - you have a Dave Grohl in your organization right now, a talent deeper and more creative than what's currently in the spotlight.  How do you find them and ensure they maximize their potential without having to leave your company?  Wouldn't it be cool if you could spot the high potential in your company and do something different with that talent? 

Of course, once you find a Dave Grohl, the problem is being brave enough to do something different with the talent.  Development of individuals in succession plans is difficult, mainly because as soon as you treat someone differently, you're putting them and everyone else on notice they are on the fast track.  That causes hard feelings and politics...

Most organizations don't fight that battle.  It's just easier to have everyone wear the same flannel shirt......

(subscribers reading via email or specific readers may need to click through for Foo Fighters clip below)

Big Career Event Coming Up? Prepare Like Tony Romo and Relax in Mexico!!!

OK - Imagine this scenario with me.  You are a member of a project team at work with a single goal in mind.  Maybe it's a team in Product Development, maybe its a Major Account/Sales team that has been working on an RFP to sell someone like Exxon or Google a whole bunch of whatever your company does.  If your product launch goes well or you close the deal, you're a hero.  If it doesn't go well, the last 3/6/12 months of your life are a wash, and maybe you have to look for a new gig.

Got it?  Great...

Now flash forward - you've worked hard for 6 months and your are two weeks away from the big event - product launch or the final pitch to Exxon/Google.  In other words, CRUNCH time.   You call and email a member of the team for some details on an adjustment you are making to your piece of the project, only to find out the team member has taken a quick trip to Mexico for a little R&R before the big launch/pitch. 

That's right, the team member is in Mexico two weeks before the critical event you've been working towards for the last 6 months.  You slowly IMPLODE as you try to figure out how to get what you need.

Sound reasonable?  Yes?  No?  Sound far-fetched?   It happened to the Dallas Cowboys last week.  Two weeks away from the playoffs, and their quarterback, Tony Romo, heads to Mexico for a quick trip with a new girlfriend and a couple of teammates.  From NBC11 in San Francisco:

"Dallas Cowboys quarterback Tony Romo and pop star Jessica Simpson vacationing in Mexico just days before a playoff game.

The couple were vacationing in Los Cabos, Mexico, with a few friends, including fellow Cowboys Jason Witten, Marc Columbo and Bobby Carpenter. The photos show the group relaxing on a patio and Simpson spending time in the pool.

Dallas Cowboys head coach Wade Phillips instructed his players to take advantage of the first round playoff bye and to get away from football for a few days, NBC reported.

"People will look for blame if you lose and will basically let all that stuff go when you win because they don't think it was relevant and it isn't," said Phillips

Uh...That's right Wade.  You have to wonder if Phillips, in effect the manager for the team, isn't biting his lip once he got the news.   He encourages his players to get some rest and get away from the game, and his most visible team member takes that as an invitation to travel out of the country?  And with a girlfriend the shareholders (i.e., Dallas fans) are already concerned is robbing Romo of his focus.

If Terrell Owens is playing it safe, playing Xbox at the house in Dallas, I think the end may be near... TO is now the responsible one...

All this after a well-documented miscue in a playoff game last year (See clip below).   I don't think the trip has anything to do with performance, but man does it look bad if the Cowboys lose.  I just hope he drank bottled water exclusively.  Even then, there was probably a Giants fan (their opponent in the playoffs) down there trying to sneak him a bottle filled with tap water. 

Comparison of 100K Jobs in Organizations.....

Budget season is pretty much past us at this point, which means headcount budgets are set for 2008.  Of course, that doesn't mean the need for staffing justification is final.  Some organizations cut new headcount to zero as part of the budget process, and some organizations allow business units to layer in additional headcount, then vigorously track revenue to determine if the new headcount will be hired in the upcoming year.

Make your revenue early in the year, and maybe you'll get to hire the additional headcount.  Struggle and chances are the new talent isn't going to be joining the organization.

One additional exercise used, when needed in headcount discussions, is the creation of staffing metrics.  Customers per Customer Service Rep, Revenue per FTE - you name it, there's a staffing metric that can be created.  Some are useful, some aren't - it's all in the context.

Here one you may or may have not seen - comparison of the raw number of 100K jobs in your organization compared to similar organizations.  Organizations routinely take a look at this simple metric to determine if they're top heavy or not.   Of course, the number itself really doesn't tell you a lot - you've got to have some type of comparison with other organizations (or divisions in the same company) to make it mean anything.

Here's an example.  In my hometown, a new mayor is comparing the Birmingham School Systems to other school systems regarding this metric.  From a Birmingham news editorial on the results of the analysis:

"Look around the area, and it's plain to see that Birmingham taxpayers pay a premium for the top administrators in their school system.

That's especially true when you have an assistant principal making more than the principal at the same school. Also, when the school system has 22 employees, most of those in the central office, making more than $100,000 a year while at Jefferson County, which has 8,000 more students, only half that many administrators make $100,000-plus. Mobile County, the state's largest school system with 65,000 students (almost 2X as many as the Birmingham City District), has just 12 administrators making more than $100,000 a year."

When you see this type of analysis, it's clear which side you want to be on - the lean side. 

Just like analysis of CEO pay, the raw number of highly compensated individuals in an organization is an emotional topic.  More importantly, since it deals with multiple positions, it's a barometer of how efficient an organization is compared to its peers.

Of course, the time to control what the Birmingham school system is experiencing is before the additonal group of highly compensated indviduals is hired.  At that point, it's voluntary.   Later, it usually becomes involuntary.

Career Exercises for New Year's Eve....

Let's face it - if you are in the office today and not tethered to a headset, it's going to be a slow day.  About 50% of America is packaging the day into a four-day weekend, and you'll be out of stuff to motivate you by Noon.

No better time to think about the future and about the past.  To help with your brainstorming, I'm offering up two articles to get the creative juices flowing from a Career standpoint:

-The always solid Paul Herbert at Incentive Intelligence advises us how to get excited about our future potential by looking at everything we've accomplished in the past.  The tool?  A Life-Map of Achievements, which will shock you with all the cool stuff you've accomplished in your lifetime, regardless of age.  Draw it up during your downtime this afternoon and feel good about what's coming up in 2008. (from Paul, via LifeHacker, via DIY Planner)

-Lest you get too comfortable with the past, Seth Godin re-posts this oldie-but-goodie, asking the question "What did you do back when interest rates were at their lowest in 50 years, crime was close to zero, great employees were looking for good jobs, computers made product development and marketing easier than ever, and there was almost no competition for good news about great ideas?".  The moral, as you might expect, is don't wait to chase the dream (whatever it is) any longer....

Have a great New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.  See you in 2008....

Merry Christmas HR Team!! Here's an Enthralling Book To Say "Thanks"...

I was going to let this list go.  But, try as I might, I can't help but be a cynic regarding the the top-selling books of the year at the SHRM store.

I didn't get the email with the list, but John Hollon blogged about it a few days ago over at The Business of Management.  Here's what John offered up earlier this week:

"Here are the Great 8 books of 2007, which I offer without comment, but would love to hear any thoughts you might have on the underlying message (if any) of this list:

• U.S. Master Human Resources Guide (Ninth Edition), by Donald W. Myers, D.B.A.
• Human Resource Management (12th Edition; textbook), By John H. Jackson and Robert L. Mathis, SPHR.
• Effective Succession Planning: Ensuring Leadership Continuity and Building Talent from Within (Third Edition), by William J. Rothwell.
• Auditing Your Human Resources Department: A Step-By-Step Guide, by John H. McConnell.
• From Sex to Religion (Employee DVD version), G. Neil (publisher).
• 101 Sample Write-Ups for Documenting Employee Performance Problems: A Guide to Progressive Discipline & Termination, by Paul Falcone.
• Performance Appraisal Sourcebook: A Collection of Practical Samples, by Mike Deblieux.
• The Carrot Principle: How the Best Managers Use Recognition to Engage Their People, Retain Talent and Accelerate Performance, by Adrian Gostick and Chester Elton."

The name of my site is the HR Capitalist, so I suppose I should appreciate the fact that these books generated the most sales at the SHRM Bookstore.  But they do seem a little on the mundane side.

Strategic they're not (with the possible exception of the Carrot Principle Book).  If someone gave me one of these books for Christmas, I'd reciprocate in kind in 2008 based on what they did for a living.  Maybe a small calculator or a used version of Quicken for the accountant in my life, or an AM Radio for the IT Pro on my "friends list".

As for my team?  They can expect that catchy "Auditing Your HR Department" title.  I hear you can't put it down and it even has a surprise ending....

Termination 101 - When Direct Reports Vote a Manager Off the Island...

Remember when reality shows were fresh?  Back in the day when Survivor was the big Kahuna?  Long before Trump started giving people "the Cobra" on The Apprentice, people were getting voted off the island on Survivor..

..and getting voted off the island happens all the time in the workplace...

Think for a couple of seconds and you'll agree you've seen it happen.  The typical version of getting voted off the island is when a manager who's incompetent or has severe conduct issues finally wears out their welcome.  Whether it's a lack of competence or crazy (but consistent) misconduct, dissension among that manager's direct reports builds over time, finally erupting into a flurry of employee relations issues across the team.  Once someone like you gets involved (you're HR, so you'll get to go in and figure it out), it's generally too late.  The natives have spoken, and the situation is irreversible.  Whether it's a resignation or termination, the situation can't be overcome by apologies, focus groups or any other solution.  The manager's out.

Of course, managers can get voted off the island by their team for just being around too long.  Abrasive styles and ego-driven managers with lots of talent can simply wear out their welcome.  It's not about competence or misconduct in these cases, it's about shelf life and staying past your expiration date.

Want a real life example of getting voted off the island because the natives are tired of your act?  Look no further than NFL coaches, where Brian Billick of the Baltimore Ravens has lost control of his team.  Billick has been a historic success in Baltimore, racking up wins, a Super Bowl Title and a 13-3 record a year ago.  Pretty good track record.

But he's got an ego that rubs lots of players the wrong way.  Towards the end of the the 12/3 Monday night game against the Patriots, the Ravens defense made a huge 4th down stop to win the game - only to find out the coaching staff had called time out before the ball was snapped.  Their reaction?  To pull off their helmets and start pointing and screaming at Billick, who remained stoic and had to be thinking to himself, "I need to get out of this job before these people run me out of here involuntarily".

Of course, unlike the workplace manager who finds himself still in rotation long after his personal expiration date, Billick has something that might save him from be voted off the team - a 3 year contract.

Which can lead to arrogance and even more dysfunction in the workplace - even if that workplace is the NFL.  Check out the video below of Billick blowing a kiss on Monday night to an opposing player who dared to attempt to show him up on national TV...  If you don't like the direct reports ripping off their helmets and screaming at you, it's probably a good idea to try and set an example and not taunt the opposition.  Just a thought...

Stay classy, Baltimore....

Workplace Poll - Men Need More Pats On The Head Than Women...

Can you imagine yourself sliding up to your grandfather and thanking him for a job well done?  No?   Join the club - there's something about the greatest generation that is uncomfortable with that type of praise of PDA (public display of affection).

So what the heck happened to men of my generation?

A new workplace poll is out from Harris Interactive and Adecco (survey of 1,455 workers by Harris Interactive for the staffing firm Adecco) on the topic of saying thanks in the workplace.  Some of the results are what you would expect, others are a little bit surprising.

The breakdown from the survey:

What we knew:

-Workers want to be thanked in person more (Thank-you letters, cards, bonuses and gifts were not covered).  Two-thirds of workers who responded to the survey said they would like more thanks and appreciation on the job.

-Most don't want to see it in an e-mail, they want it live... I guess I knew that...

-Appreciation works best to motivate 18-to-34-year-old workers -- 68 percent said they would hustle harder with more thanks.  Like my kids, this generation got a trophy for showing up, so be sure to say thanks, perhaps even when results aren't there...

-The wily veterans on your team don't necessarily need as much praise - hence the lead about my grandpa.  Only 42 percent of workers 55 and up said more thanks would motivate them.

-It's not those polled who have the problem with saying thanks, it's "those other people".  Three-quarters of respondents said they pass out enough thanks to colleagues, but only half said their boss "does a good job" of thanking them.  That's a disconnect similar to self-evaluation of performance....

What Surprised Us From the Poll:

-Gen Y likes their thank yous in person, not via technology.  Almost three-quarters of workers ages 18 to 34 said appreciation in e-mail is not as good as in person.  No word if they'll put down their iPod long enough to make eye contact with you...

-Men were more likely than women to say the extra thanks would make them more productive.  What??? 

Men of the world, what have we become?  Is Stuart Smalley our new role model?  (Note - I'm speaking of the affirmation theme, not anything to do with orientation, so please don't plow me in the comments)  Come to think of it, our grandfathers and fathers probably had an affirmation routine of their own.  It was called confidence, self motivation and getting the job done... They just wouldn't talk about their jobs and didn't want anyone showing any emotion to them about it.

Still, it does feel good to hear "thanks".  I prefer to think of the generational change from my grandfather to me as a nice "smoothing" process. 

PS - Thanks for reading this post....(shameless plug to your need for thanks in order to keep you coming back)...

Complaining About Your Pay - Stay Classy, HR Professionals....

I was trolling through my Google Reader over the weekend, and saw the following post from YourHRGuy regarding a manager making less than one of his subordinates.  Ah yes, the pay question.  Always tricky.  Hurt feelings... principles...the burning need inside you to address it via confrontation...

I've been in the same circumstances as the manager profiled by YourHRGuy.  You're a young manager new  to your role, and after 2-3 months, you finally get some payroll data on your team.  You're scrolling through the detail and BAAAAAAM!!!  Sally (your direct report) is making 5K more than you.  How the #$*# does that happen?

The answer?  It's complicated.  Sally was hired for a different role and was slotted into her current job in a reorganization.  Sally has 15 years of experience, you have 5-10.  Sally was hired by Bob in Global Sales, and man, did they like to pay a lot up front.  Lots of factors.

Of course, after you go through the reasons, the reality is the same.  Sally's making more than you, and you're her manager.  That ain't right.

So what's it going to be?  Are you going to suck it up, or are you going to make someone accountable for the issue?  Are you sure you want to go there?  After all, you are a HR Pro and have access to ALL the data... That makes you different...

Here's my list of rules when it comes to determining whether you want to address a pay issue that's comparative in nature (that means you have salary data for someone else in mind).  These apply whether someone you manage, or someone who is a peer, is making more than you are:

1.  If the pay information you have is based on rumor or secured through the access your job provides, you probably shouldn't go into the conversation "guns a-blazing" - Find out that Sally makes more than you via the rumor mill or via your access to payroll provided by your job?  You'll hurt your credibility by identifying the direct issue (the employee who makes more than you) to the powers that be... Nobody wants to hear that you're combing the payroll records, putting them to memory and stirring the pot.

2.  If your career is on a solid arc upward, and the identified issue involves a peer or direct report that doesn't deliver what you do, be confident the market will balance the issue over time.  If you're a player and the other person isn't, don't muddy your brand by starting a negative conversation.  The market knows you're a player, and over the course of the next few years, you'll be rewarded.  If you are managing those that make more than you, that process has already begun.  The only thing that might derail that?  The perception that your work isn't the most important thing to you - the money is...

3.  Stay Classy, San Diego - If you have to have a conversation about money, identify who the best person is for that conversation, then keep the negative emotion to yourself.   No one wants to hear the emotional rant.  Figure out the best way to ask that person to take a look at the issue on your behalf, and ask them for their help without defining the end result you expect or those that make more than you.   Defining what you want indicates if they don't get to your number, they've failed.  All that does is damage a relationship.

I'm a big fan of high-end talent letting their performance define their worth.  That being said, I suppose there are times when a pay conversation is in order.  If that time is now for you, leave the citations about what other people make in your desk.  It will hurt your lifetime earnings more than it will help.  Figure out a better way to get into the conversation.

That goes double for all us HR types.  With great access (to payroll records) comes great responsibility.  You can't be trusted to see all the comp increases flowing across the Matrix, then have the audacity to come forward to complain about what someone else is earning.  For us, and the people who manage us, it's all about trust....

Performance Management at Microsoft - Moving from 5-point to 3-point Rating Scale

It's been awhile since I waxed about the limitations of the performance management systems most of us use in our companies.  Probably my biggest pet peeve is the 5 point rating scale, where managers invariably use a combination of 3's and 4's to bail themselves out of tough conversations with average employees (click through on the link to get my take). 

I like the 3-point scale better.  With that in mind, it was good to see Microsoft featured in the most recent print edition of Workforce Managment as having ripped out their 5-point rating scale and installed a 3-point scale.  From the article:

"Under that old system, Microsoft managers assigned current performance ratings of 0 to 5 in half-point increments based on a forced distribution.  Because current performance ratings not only determine annual salary increases but also come in to play when employees apply for another position with the company, the forced distribution approach was a sore spot.

"We also discovered the old system was not fully effective", Ritchie (Microsoft GM for Performance Management) notes.  Consequently, Microsoft trashed its 0 to 5 rating scale and adopted a three point "commitment" scale of "exceeded", "achieved" and "underperformed" with no forced distribution.

"Distribution under the new system is about what we expected," Richie reports.  In the last full cycle, 37 percent of employees received a rating of "exceeded", 58% received a rating of "achieved" and 5 percent were rated "underperformed".  The general rule is that the top group receives a merit increase that is 50% higher than average performers."

Of course, your problems don't end just because you move from a 5-point to 3-point scale.  You still have to have managers that can communicate the difference between a "meets" and an "exceeds", and the distribution of overall ratings can still be an issue. 

But you are taking the "Sometimes Exceeds" crutch away by moving to a 3-point scale, and that's worth the effort alone.

Sports and HR - What the Knicks Teach Us About Manager/Employee Friendships...

Topic - Being good friends with employees you support as a HR Manager or those that you supervise as a manager...

Let me first say this - you are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don't.  Everyone wants to be more than a HR Director or the manager of an employee - we want to be someone that the employee can rely on in times of need, someone the employee can consider a friend.     The downside is that deep friendships with employees you manage directly or support in a HR capacity can sometimes position you as questionable with employees that aren't in the inner circle.

So, we all dance the dance to figure out the middle ground.

Of course, there are other concerns.  You could be hijacked by an troubled employee grasping for leverage in an employment situation.  Case in point?  Stephon Marbury of pro basketball's New York Knicks.  From Deadspin:

"Stephon Marbury (guard for the Knicks), an investment that has totally