Home
Bertrand Duperrin's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
"HR/HCM is historically the mature ’social’ center of businesses and can either lead digital transformation or be subsumed into a supporting collaborative role"
-
Despite the slick exterior image many companies create for themselves, the internal reality is typically a patchwork quilt of technologies layered over the years since the dawn of enterprise computing by a succession of inhabitants to serve specific business needs, both departmentally and across the organization
-
Many of these technologies are clearly modeled on outdated work concepts and processes, but the entire organization hangs together around tenured ideas in the collective mind of the organization
- 7 more annotation(s)...
"Un quart des cadres sondés par L’Atelier BNP Paribas seraient favorables à une évaluation de leurs compétences via les réseaux sociaux. La démarche permettrait d’évaluer des compétences que les cadres jugent insuffisamment prises en compte, du relationnel à l’animation ou encore l’implication dans la vie de l’entreprise. Une (r-)évolution, qui n’est certes pas imminente, mais certaine d’après les experts de L’Atelier."
-
Une large proportion de cadres estime que certaines compétences ne sont pas prises en compte dans l’évaluation par l’entreprise : 29% font référence aux compétences relationnelles, 43% à la capacité à participer ou animer des communautés autour de leur domaine d’expertise et 45% à la capacité à participer à la vie de l’entreprise
-
Toutes les entreprises ont un site ; elles deviennent des media. Et les cadres jouent un rôle dans la chaîne de production media de l’entreprise, alors qu’ils ne sont pas des professionnels de la communication. De facto, ils participent à l’effort de communication de l’entreprise ».
- 4 more annotation(s)...
"There's a bogus belief that gets in the way of managers when they evaluate performance. That myth says that in order for an appraisal to be objective, assessors must have quantifiable metrics to support their assessment judgment.
That's just not true. What is a performance appraisal? The straightforward answer: A performance appraisal is a formal record of a manger's opinion of the quality of an employee's work."
-
Writing a performance appraisal requires managers to be fair, unprejudiced, and objective. But the fairness requirement doesn't mean that you're restricted only to using quantitative, numerical metrics in making your assessment. Your opinions, feelings, and judgments are what the appraisal process demands.
-
In every other area of managerial activity, the ability to make good decisions in spite of limited and perhaps even conflicting data is what they get paid for. Only in the case of performance appraisal do we feel unnerved about the fact that examples, experience, and judgment — not quantitative and provable metrics — are used
- 2 more annotation(s)...
"we had a few moments to talk about her topic of revising how organizations and employees look at performance management. In particular, how we keep a record of what we actually do over a year of work, and get feedback on our efforts from those we engage in our work."
-
Ms. Wilson was careful to distinguish keeping a record of what we do versus the annual or semi-annual performance reviews with management. The latter usually results in recordkeeping just for the sake of maintaining a system of record, but is rarely used. Instead what we were discussing is storing collective knowledge about the particulars of any project or task so that we as employees may refer to it for our own, or even shared recall of activities.
-
Observable work is a practice to turn what we do in our daily tasks actions, knowledge and insight into recorded information that we can lookup or reuse later if we need to, or in the case of social business be able to share this view of our work with others of our choosing.
- 4 more annotation(s)...
"I'm happy to announce that we are undertaking a thorough, public trial of an alternative to the traditional performance review.
ratings pic.pptx.jpgDo you ever wonder if and how you could call a halt to your performance review process? Do you think traditional processes are marred by the distribution curve (and forced rankings), huge time investments and low impact on performance improvements? Maybe you agree that your processes have their faults, but you think that it's not sensible to abolish performance appraisals altogether or replace them with coaching sessions."
-
o, what was the problem? In short, twice a year the model did exactly the opposite to what we wanted to accomplish. Instead of an inspiring discussion about how to enhance people's performance, the reviews caused disruptions, anxiety and de-motivated team members and managers. Also, even though our model was extremely lean and simple, the time investment was significant.
-
We'll stop paying individual performance bonuses. Instead, we'll give everyone a salary bump (similar to Netflix's approach, paying top market salaries rather than bonuses).
- 3 more annotation(s)...
I've found that the most powerful approach is also the simplest: make email an intrinsic part of performance reviews. Insist that colleagues and subordinates better evaluate their email so that you may better evaluate their performance. There are few better proxies for assessing how well individuals are communicating, on task and on target, than the digital missives they send in order to get their work done.
-
Email wasn't a medium of communication; it was a mechanism for referral. The larger issue was that this person was so intent on being "comprehensive" that they avoided getting to the essence of what their colleagues asked for and needed in the moment.
-
I'm not so tech-naive to constrain this performance review technique to email alone. Firms using wikis, blogs, internal Facebooks, and other digital media for coordination and collaboration should similarly broaden the purview of their performance reviews.
-
I believe employees want to do a good job.
-
I believe people do what they get rewarded to do.
- 13 more annotation(s)...
"Feedback" is one of those loaded, double-meaning words in today's workplace - words that connote very different things to members of different generations.
-
If you're a Boomer, consider what you expect to happen when you have a "feedback session" with your boss. In all likelihood, the purpose of this exchange would be to assess your performance, to render a judgment. Because Boomers love to win, your hopes may be high for a prize - but still it's not exactly the sort of thing one wants to go through on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis - once or twice a year is plenty, thank you very much.
-
If you're a member of Generation X, the meaning of "feedback" is similar - it relates to an assessment or judgment. But the hoped-for outcomes may be a bit different. More money is great, but so is a longer leash -- more freedom to operate in your own preferred way.
- 2 more annotation(s)...
-
- Two parties with misaligned goals. When walking into a performance review the boss’ goal of discussing areas of improvement don’t match up with the employee’s goal of promotion and compensation.
- The false belief that performance affects pay. Culbert argues that pay is primarily determined by market forces (which makes sense - just look at our current economic situation - are many people expecting big raises/bonuses this year?) and most jobs are placed in a pay range even before the employee is hired.
- As objective as we try to be - there are always personal biases. This is a fundamental conflict. Depending on one’s position, their opinion and view will differ. This is where Culbert also brings up the “360-degree feedback”. When feedback is anonymized that creates more opportunity for various parties to further their personal agenda since there is no accountability associated with their review.
- Everyone is different - “once size does not fit all”. Performance reviews often revolve around a predetermined checklist. This is why people may focus more on pleasing their boss than doing a good job. Since a happy boss will (theoretically) leave you with a higher score.
- Employees are reluctant to go to their bosses for help (for fear that it will reflect badly on their performance review). It makes sense that employees would go to their bosses for help, guidance and improvement. But, “thanks to the performance review, the boss is often the last person an employee would turn to”.
- Disrupts teamwork. The most important type of teamwork is the one-on-one relationship between a boss and their subordinates. But in performance reviews, as opposed to taking the stance “how will we work together as a team”, it’s “how are you performing for me”.
- At the end of the day… performance reviews don’t improve corporate performance.
-
Another bogus element is the idea that pay is a function of performance, and that the words being spoken in a performance review will affect pay. But usually they don't. I believe pay is primarily determined by market forces, with most jobs placed in a pay range prior to an employee's hiring.
-
Most performance reviews are staged as "objective" commentary, as if any two supervisors would reach the same conclusions about the merits and faults of the subordinate. But consider the well-observed fact that when people switch bosses, they often receive sharply different evaluations from the new bosses to whom they now report.
- 5 more annotation(s)...
Although an entire industry of consultants, HR professionals, and software firms seem bent on devoting more and more time and money to performance evaluations, all the energy devoted to these things over the years have done little to change Sam's observation about the difference between the promise and the problems:
-
- The Promise: Performance reviews are supposed to provide an objective evaluation that helps determine pay and lets employees know where they can do better.
- The Problems: That's not most people's experience with performance reviews. Inevitably reviews are political and subjective, and create schisms in boss-employee relationships. The link between pay and performance is tenuous at best. And the notion of objectivity is absurd; people who switch jobs often get much different evaluations from their new bosses.
-
Sam's article is also in the spirit of design thinking, as in many cases, after people have spent years trying to perfect some procedure, gadget, or feature that they -- usually mindlessly -- accept as something they cannot do without and then a breakthrough happens when some clever person (often someone who isn't an expert in the field) comes along and removes it or unwittingly goes forward and succeeds without it. Then everyone realizes that they never needed it at all. - 1 more annotation(s)...
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo