Asking the Experts about Performance Management
 |
|
We asked ASMI’s Consulting Director, Jon Desenberg, about the role of organizational culture and the impact of “soft skills” on performance. Jon’s work is primarily in the Human Capital Management Division at ASMI, although he has over 14 years of experience in the fields of performance management, strategic planning, knowledge management, and IT Program Planning. We asked him to evaluate the role of culture and management’s “soft skills” on organizational performance
|
PJ: Is performance management defined by the culture of the organization? Why or why not?
Desenberg: Some organizations may have a shorter or simplified path to performance management. For instance The American Strategic Management Institute’s recent discussions with the US Postal Service demonstrated that USPS has forged a strong connection between performance and compensation. USPS compensation is directly related to its revenue, which is directly related to performance, so there is a natural connection and they’ve had excellent results with their pay for performance system.
A better and more relevant example for other organizations is where we’ve seen a demonstrated example and tone set by senior leadership, even if there has not been a strong results-based culture previously. One organization we worked with recently had several new executives with strong performance backgrounds. When these new executives began using performance measures in executive meetings and for decision-making purposes, the rest of the organization came to see their value pretty quickly. Of course one or two people can’t always change a long-term culture, but we’ve seen significant progress when the right new hires caused an adoption of these beliefs and management style.
PJ: Is it possible to assess the performance of management's "soft skills," i.e. leadership, teamwork, negotiation, interpersonal communication, etc.?
Desenberg: Certainly, this is often referred to as competency or behavioral performance and is growing in popularity in all sectors. We have seen a huge up tick in the number of agencies who want to connect recruitment, training, development, performance, and retention through competency management.
Competencies can be seen in two ways: The first addresses the ability of an individual to demonstrate results on the job. The second is a definition of what is required of an individual for effective performance. These two are closely related but distinct and together they help us bring together all aspect of an employee’s career, both what the organization invests in the employee and what the employee’s return is for the organization. Clearly defining job competencies is useful in assisting individuals develop their competencies for that job as well as forming the basis for measurement. In other words organizations can and should clearly define and measure the performance areas related to success in a job or role. We should strive to objectively measure not only what gets done and how it gets done. This balance is essential to an organization’s success with performance management.
PJ: What role do you see management's "soft skills" playing in the overall performance of the organization?
It’s unfortunately easy to see where the lack of investment in management’s “soft skills” has resulted in poorly implemented performance management programs. One organization in the news recently rolled out a “performance” system where employees would be evaluated and differentiated. However after about a year it became clear that 97% of all employees had been rated “above average” and “outstanding” in the new system. Other organizations like Ford Motor and TIAA-CREFF have also seen problems in rolling-out these systems effectively. We can’t expect much better until we seriously invest in supervisory training and development. The organization I referred to required less than 40 hours of training total for new supervisors. Most skilled professions require almost as much continuing education every year! Making the move from technically skilled employee to a management supervisor is difficult and the reason the system hasn’t traditionally had to invest that much in training these folks is because technical skills were much more valued than developing and appraising employees. Today that’s changing, and the so-called “soft” skills are becoming just as important as the technical or “hard” skills that have previously resulted in promotions.
|
|
