Managerial leadership practices - Personal effectiveness system

Speaker A So what we're saying is it doesn't matter where you are in the organization. You want to know how well they're doing. A lot of times we'll say jimmy, do this really well for level one and level two folks but it doesn't really matter have level three, level four, level five, how well they're doing. So what is the process that we identify how well they're doing within an organization. A lot of times at the senior level of the organization have got a clue. You're just told what to do. Very seldom is anyone how well they're doing other than when it comes to time for a bonus, if there's a bonus or something like that. We all need to know how well they're doing. It's a craving that we have. It's an inert desire that we have so we need to know that. Requisite says we have many tools that help you identifying to your staff how well they're doing. One of them is the evaluation, personal evaluation and feedback and we'll talk about that more. It's a fairly in depth process coaching and the word coaching again in English language. First of all we think about sports team and there's some of that same desired outcome of that. But the idea that a manager is supposed to get the most out of their staff, you're supposed to build your team is as capable as possible to do the work that you're being assigned because you're being held accountable by your manager to get that work done. Personal effectiveness Appraisal again many organizations are going to have some sort of form whether it's a performance review or whatever you call it where you have it. But normally it's typically an annual once a year event and what we're trying to say and we'll talk more about it is that it should be an ongoing the effectiveness appraisal should be something that's ongoing. It shouldn't be open once a year event whether it's appropriate or not. In my experience sometimes we learn because we've had many opportunities and experience so in sharing that a lot of times frequently maybe not a lot of times frequently managers only time they have a one on one conversation with their staff is when it comes to a performance review. Just think how sad that is. Other than giving a person a pass the only time they sit down with their staff is at the end of the year and say this is what I observed. So you're now in December saying last January you did something like this and I noticed how does that make the individual fear feel and how are we getting any benefit from that? So it has to be a continuous process. Most appraisal systems not all because I haven't seen all but I say most of them familiar are ticking boxes where you put boxes that are ranking system of one to five or one to three and you put six boxes in there where you have to write measures of productivity. So you completed the number of widgets you were supposed to produce, or you completed the number of projects. From a requisite point of view, we like to look at it as a holistic approach. And the simplest way to look at this is that I may have been your top performer, so I'm your worker. I may have been your top performer, I produced the most widgets or the most projects, whatever it was that you'd ask me to do. So from a numerics point of view, let's say I'm your top performer, but the idea is the manager has to know the staff well enough that maybe I'm not your top performer. Maybe it's Nancy who's done far fewer projects or made far fewer widgets, but there's quality standard or she had the more difficult tasks to do. So productivity is an example or is a measure, but it's not a single measure. You have to balance productivity with the judgment of the manager. Unfortunately, or fortunately, however you look at it, managers have to make decisions. Managers have to make some judgments. It's not I'm from an engineering background, so we also like to have everything down to subsection. 3.1.2 says we like to have it bracketed or come up with a process that's okay. The score sheet says Terry got 35 points, therefore he ranks as exceeding expectations or meeting expectations. But in the end, even if we do that, my experience is when we give that type of assistance to a manager, in the end they'll take their ten or twelve appraisals that they've done with the numbers on them. They'll look at it and say, these numbers don't really represent the way I feel, and they'll go back and make some adjustments. So we're saying is you already have that capability, you already have that judgment. Do it in the first place. You don't need a form to tell you that Terry is not a good performer's name. You already know that intuitively because of all the things you've done, the continuous coaching you've done, the task assignment, you've done qualities, you know all these things. So that your judgment. So you put that down. Shouldn't be an open end lock. Again, when I say this, I'm referring more to my experience than anyone in the room with you. Many times you complete a form, and sometimes you don't even review it. For the individual, it's the process says the manager must complete a review once a year. So you get your ticky box because all your reviews are in. But how valuable is that? The whole idea is you have to sit down with your employee and be able to go through that and explain to them. And what we're saying from a requisite point of view is this should be an ongoing process. It should be one of the slides said, no surprises. So I mean, as you see good things happen. You talk to the person. As you see things that need correction, you talk to the person and you document your report. And once a year you make your report. But at the end of the year, there shouldn't be a surprise that said, last January you did this, or last March, you really did a good job. It should be a continuous process. It should be open, it should be transparent.

Speaker B I would also add to the personal effectiveness appraisal process as a human resources process, very often what you have to do as human resources professionals is rewrite the document. And it was one of the things that we struggled with for almost two years in the organization where I met Nancy was how to take the numbers completely out of the system and do what Elliot spoke of so clearly is if this is what I hold someone accountable to do, did they do it? And so did they meet expectations? And most managers are in the formal process. They've been educated around a system of numbers, which then becomes a system related to compensation. And it's not always very trust inducing. So one of the struggles that we had for almost two years was to rewrite the personal effectiveness appraisal, and we actually called it personal effectiveness appraisal to make the point with the managers when we went back around just the personal effectiveness appraisal process, that this is what we meant. This is why the task assignment was so critical and meets expectations was just fine. Because if that's what I'm asking you to do, it is, in fact okay that you do it there. And so we, of course, had to have managers that wanted to know about what exceeding expectations was about. But one of the most useful categories that we put into place, and I think you did this in Ontario hydro too, was developing toward expectations, because sometimes you will have subordinates in a role that are not quite there in terms of their development within their role. And a manager wishes to recognize that. So it's not that they're not meeting expectations, it's that they're not there yet. They're not completely meeting it. So we set up that category as a very positive way to enable this kind of coaching to go on, so that a manager could say, after the first year in the role, it's probably going to take you two years to be fully developed in the role, but here's a way to think about it. So we did not add that in, because almost every organization has its own system for doing it. But it was very, very useful as a human resource system in the process with personal effectiveness appraisal, and really helped the managers give them something that they could work with.