Recently, Glenn had a reaction to Jaime Notter being quoted about performance evaluations in an Ernie Smith article for Associations Now. Jaime stated: “You still have to properly compensate people, fire people, and develop skills….If you have one process that does these three things at the same time, it is guaranteed to fail.”
If Jamie is saying there are no “best practices,” we agree. We have observed that there is no one way that works the best all the time everywhere. But, there are effective practices and practices that suck.
A well-conceived formative appraisal process (as opposed to summative) creates a useful information base that can serve all three purposes well. It draws attention to things that colleagues ought to be having frequent conversations about. It helps focus attention on the things that are considered important in the organization. Conversely, separate processes for each purpose causes confusion, duplicates effort, and diminishes confidence in the value of the time invested.
Culture will define how the performance assessment process is viewed. For example, in the few larger companies abandoning balanced evaluations, employment decisions are made primarily on the basis of achievement of monetary targets. This is not surprising since making money is the thread that holds the fabric of a for-profit business together. In associations, performance appraisal is often a reflection of how members are evaluated in their own workplaces.
We find that in successful cultures the interests of the organization and the interests of the individual are treated with the same respect – even when they are not compatible. Promoting individual satisfaction and contribution to organizational purpose are NOT mutually exclusive. To pretend that they are not interrelated ignores both research and experience.
A balanced performance evaluation process considers three dimensions: (1) achievement of objectives, (2) fulfillment of job responsibilities, and (3) demonstration of professional competencies. The holistic view of performance resulting from both formal and informal attention by the “evaluatee” and the “evaluator(s)” provides a rational base for both employment decisions and performance improvement at the individual, group and organizational levels.
Like most things in complex organizations performance evaluation will never be perfect. But, it can be better. For a free list of design specifications to guide development or assessment of performance appraisal processes just email me at [email protected].
Read Similar Blog Posts
About the Author
