may 2 – 6, 2015 presented by opm in honor or your ... · may 2 – 6, 2015 presented by opm in...

May 2 – 6, 2015 Presented by OPM in honor or your dedication to your country

The Truth About Performance Reviews

Michael F. Belcher, Faculty, FEI May 5, 2016

AGENDA

• History of Employee Evaluations • Putting Performance Reviews in

Perspective • Private-Sector Innovations • Public Sector Initiatives • Conclusion & Questions

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

An Emotional Experience

Type-in 1-3 words describing your feelings about performance reviews: 1. As the subject of a review 2. As the supervisor giving a review


The Birth of Bureaucracy

200 BC: Chinese civil service & military evaluations

5th-15th Century: Guilds certify master craftsmen

1911: Scientific management theory

1912: Civil Service Commission Division of Efficiency


Title 4 U.S. Code § 4302

“Under regulations which the Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe, each performance appraisal system shall provide for establishing

performance standards which will, to the maximum extent feasible, permit the accurate evaluation of job performance on the basis of objective criteria (which may include the extent of courtesy demonstrated to

the public) related to the job in question for each employee or position under the system; & evaluating each employee during the appraisal period on such

standards…”


Promised vs. Provided

Do you get adequate feedback during the year regarding your job performance?


[ ] YES [ ] NO

Poll of 2,000 Federal employees: 63% marked “No”

Exposed and Afraid

Convey mixed signals Evaluation, coaching and/or appreciation? Induce anxiety & insecurity

Constrict creativity & growth

Create competition, not collaboration

Unable to define future objectives “Other duties as assigned” Unable (or unwilling) to communicate accurately


See Through Labels

• Quick thinking: Offers plausible excuses • Careful thinker: Won’t make a decision • Takes pride in work: Conceited • Forceful: Argumentative • Meticulous: Nitpicker • Zealous: Opinionated • Principled: Stubborn • Career-minded: Backstabber • Loyal: Can’t get a job elsewhere • Leadership potential: Tall or has a loud

voice


Source: Samuel Culbert, Get Rid of the Performance Review!, 2010

Rating the Raters’ Ratings

Lack objectivity: Idiosyncratic Rater Effect: Rating reflects more about the Rater than the rated employee

Lack accuracy: Rater Insufficiency Effect: Rater uses mental shortcuts to compensate for lack of information

Low return-on-investment:


“A one-side accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It’s a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to

straight-talk relationships, & a prime cause of low morale at work. Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications &

teamwork.” Dr. Samuel Culbert, UCLA Anderson School of Management


Transactional Transformational

Examine the past Explore the future

Force the process Empower the person

Individual accountability (competition)

Collaborative teams (cooperation)

Capture deviations Capitalize on diversity

Motivate with incentives Motivate with intrinsic rewards

Periodic/as scheduled Continuous /as needed

Rely on inspection Improve processes

Improve the parts Improve whole systems

Top-down monologue Dyadic Dialog

One-way accountability Two-way accountability

Private-Sector Innovations

1. Periodic performance pulses [evaluation]

• Rating the managers intention for the employee, not their perception

I would award this person the highest possible compensation increase & bonus [1-5 scale]

I would always want this person on my team [1-5 scale] This person is at risk for low performance [yes or no] This person is ready for promotion [yes or no]


Source: Marcus Buckingham & Ashley Goodall, 2015

Private-Sector Innovations

2. Continuous check-ins [coaching and appreciation]

• Clarifying expectations, expressing appreciation & extending support

I used my strengths this period[1-5 scale] I added outstanding value [1-5 scale] What help do you need from your manager [open

question]

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT Source: Marcus Buckingham & Ashley Goodall, 2015

Public-Sector Initiatives

1. “Performance Management +” Balance objective evaluation with merit system principles

2. Employee engagement Frequent Check-Ins

• Purpose: Interrogate reality Address aids & impediments to optimal performance Enrich relationships

• Method Frequency of contact Media to communicate Density of communications


Interim implementation = Leadership

Conclusion

Thank you for your participation &

your service to our nation!



Contact Info Michael F. Belcher, Faculty, FEI [email protected] (434) 980-6360 Leadership.opm.gov

may 2 – 6, 2015 presented by opm in honor or your ... · may 2 – 6, 2015 presented by opm in...

Documents