Given my bower bird tendencies and previous post, I thought it worth the time to pause, take stock and reflect on a few.
The debate has been taking place for some time about the merits of various performance appraisal and development processes with my colleagues.
This piece probably best sums up my personal views - Motivational performance reviews (and other oxymorons) from Sonar6 at http://www.sonar6.com/colorpapers/motivation
There should be no surprises!
The cause of the tension comes from a particular group of people's practice that dictates someone must have completed a 12 month performance appraisal cycle before any formal performance improvement process can be initiated. Yes, seriously.
As a result, all performance appraisal and development processes are dreaded and avoided, or at best, delayed by all parties. Managers view them as a necessary evil and protection should they need to move into a disciplinary domain at some time. Employees see them as a moment in time where a manager might give some feedback, which has a reasonable chance of being negative and could be used against the employee in the future...
There is certainly very little genuine conversation in the whole experience.
And so the question... how to influence a changed approach when confronted with years of 'lived experience', custom and practice?
Enter 'evidence based practice' and recovery models.
You see, I work in a public health service. Evidence based medicine and evidence based practice are more than buzz words in health - they are meant to be the basis on which all treatment and care is provided.
Following a Twitter lead, I came to the Evidence Based HR website http://www.evidencebasedhr.com/ and have every intention of trawling my way through it to find what evidence I can relating to performance and development of employees. The only hope of influencing change will begin with evidence that supports the merits of doing things differently.
Recovery oriented practice is the preferred approach to the provision of mental health care - as opposed to a medically oriented model. I'm still working out what this really means when it comes to clinician/client interactions, but it is well espoused and enshrined in national and international policy. From what I can glean, it is strengths based, and 'hope' features heavily in the policy documents. Client driven/centered care/services are also key components. Bottom line from this non-clinical person's understanding - recovery is a journey of personal development and growth.
Now some of those I've had the most robust conversations with are also promoters of recovery approaches...and it dawned on me that the very people who are concerned that they identify and document all employee shortcomings in case they have to formally do something about it in the future, are the same people who are working to get clinicians work with clients from a strengths based, self directed, hopeful approach!
I did alert one colleague to this with an interesting reaction I can best describe as denial.
I stumbled across this piece today (and now realise the merits of LinkedIn's news feed)... 'How Finland became an education leader' http://www.salon.com/news/david_sirota/2011/07/18/tony_wagner_finland
I wonder what would happen if we raised the bar this way for our staff, including the way we supported them and developed them? What difference would it make for our client's health and well being? What difference would it make for the motivation and performance levels of our clinicians?
In among this, the latest round of pay rise negotiations are taking place and there are some groups of employees who have got particularly skilled in the process. They are all knowledge workers... on the quest of greater levels of financial reward in order to satisfy needs and expectations that remain otherwise unfilled. Yet each pay rise never quite seems to fix the concerns and issues it was hoped to... like an addict, it seems each hit needs to be bigger than the last and with shorter time lapses... Daniel Pink, what have we done to each other?
Drive; the surprising truth about what motivates us
&
Be careful with an 'if-then' approach to reward and recognition
Another conversation with a professional colleague about the formal 'plan/6 month/12 month' approach to performance appraisal and development brought about the realisation that the policy requirement to complete the 'plan' for a new employee within 3 months could be viewed as unreasonable - a real plan requiring a greater length of time to develop a relationship and appreciation of the employees capabilities... further discussion revealed that some of what is intended in this conversation - clarification of role requirements, expectations and standards - are part of a classic induction and orientation process...
Could this be why we have got the performance development aspect of the employer/employee relationship so wrong? We failed to consistently clarify and confirm expectations in the early days and hence spend so much time subsequently fixing up things that should have been sorted out in the early days.
My thoughts then returned to the formal policy documents guiding this in our organisation and wonder the extent to which they are based on historical custom and practice, or on evidence of best practice? When people seek advice on the application of these policies, are they receiving words based on evidence or a personal interpretation and opinion? And I thank my adult daughter for her clarity about the difference between advice and opinion...
So where does this leave me?
Firstly, to always be clear about when advice is based on evidence and when I am speaking from personal interpretation and opinion.
Secondly, to shift from the status quo I will need evidence of a compelling reason for change... and I will need those in formal leadership positions to determine that this is a priority... and a whole lot more to boot, but that will do for a start!
I started this piece in June 2011 and it's now October 2012. In the passing time, I've read more about why none of these traditional approaches works and the organisational debate has raged. The organisation I work in has even changed the name - from Performance Appraisal and Development (PAD) to Performance & Development (P&D). Don't laugh - this is my reality.
Finally, I heard Kim Seeling-Smith speak at a conference. She had gathered much of the research and evidence about what does and doesn't work as far as career development and employee engagement is concerned and has shared this overall model of FFOCCUSED communication. She used to have a great pdf visual which I can't locate, but the link will give you the idea.
http://www.kimseelingsmith.com/blog/2012/7/3/ffoccused-communication.html
When I talked with one of our managers about this his comment was "that's what PAD is meant to be about". (Sigh of relief)
High time to post methinks!
I started this piece in June 2011 and it's now October 2012. In the passing time, I've read more about why none of these traditional approaches works and the organisational debate has raged. The organisation I work in has even changed the name - from Performance Appraisal and Development (PAD) to Performance & Development (P&D). Don't laugh - this is my reality.
Finally, I heard Kim Seeling-Smith speak at a conference. She had gathered much of the research and evidence about what does and doesn't work as far as career development and employee engagement is concerned and has shared this overall model of FFOCCUSED communication. She used to have a great pdf visual which I can't locate, but the link will give you the idea.
http://www.kimseelingsmith.com/blog/2012/7/3/ffoccused-communication.html
When I talked with one of our managers about this his comment was "that's what PAD is meant to be about". (Sigh of relief)
High time to post methinks!
No comments:
Post a Comment