When Marcia Feola wants to know what workers are really thinking, she wanders around and looks for themes to the cartoons they post on computers, bulletin boards or desks.
"Humor is the truth about the culture in those jokes," she says, whether they point to being snowed under with work or finding managers always in meetings.
When Jeffrey Kudisch talks to his MBA students about locating an employer that's a "good fit," he suggests asking questions before and during the interview. "Selection is a two-way street," said Kudisch, who teaches management at the University of Maryland's Smith School of Business.
Read this Article at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/09/19/ST2009091901876.html
Showing posts with label performance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label performance. Show all posts
Friday, September 25, 2009
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Business Week: Low Grades for Performance Reivews
Some years ago, a human resources manager at Apple Computer (AAPL) got her managers to finish their performance reviews by bribing them with free tickets to San Francisco Giants games.
At North Carolina software company SAS Institute, David Russo, then head of HR, got cheers from employees in the mid-1990s for a bonfire celebration that fed appraisal forms into the flames. Nothing has changed much since then. Managers don't like doing appraisals. Employees don't like getting them. Perhaps that's because they all suspect what the evidence shows: Such performance reviews don't work.
Read the entire article at: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_31/b4141080608077.htm
Friday, April 10, 2009
Talent is Worthless; Performance is Priceless
by Stephen Blakesley
During the past 20 years, executives, consultants and educators have had a lot to say about how to discover, develop and keep talent. Discovering, developing or retaining talented people is of little value, however, unless the talent manager can engage them to perform at high levels.
People with talent fail at an alarming rate within organizations. According to Robert Kelley and Janet Caplan, researchers who studied workers at the once prestigious Bell Labs in the late 1980s and early 1990s, most talented hires wind up as average or below-average performers.
Kelley and Caplan found that at Bell Labs and its competitors, 85 to 90 percent of the extremely talented people hired never rose beyond average when it came to productivity. They also found that 10 to 15 percent of hires who rose to “star performance” status were eight times more productive than the average or mediocre performers.
Let’s say you are responsible for the results of an organization employing 100 people. If your organization is average, seven of those people are star performers, 83 are average and 10 are slackers. Now let’s say, you encounter an economic climate that prohibits hiring and compels you to do better with what you have. What would be your strategy?
There are very talented people masquerading as average or mediocre performers. If you could convert just one mediocre performer to star status, the value of that conversion, according to the Bell Labs study, would be equivalent to adding seven average performers to the workforce at no additional cost to the organization.
To uncover why talented people underperform, begin with a simple premise: It is human nature to want to do well, to want to be the best you can be. Thus, if the talent manager “dangled the bait” of being a star performer in front of talented employees, some would take it.
Many talented employees don’t become stars because they don’t know how, or they have no real idea of what a star performer looks like in terms of achievements and accomplishments. If talent managers can address those two issues, they have a greater chance of catching a star.
When crafting a plan to address those issues, there are two possible applications. One would be as part of an on-boarding program or process for new employees, and the other is as remedial training and education of the existing workforce. Time spent educating talented people on how they can leverage their special abilities to become even more than they imagined promises an ROI beyond expectations. Lethargic and apathetic employees come alive, and people once without direction, move with more certainty toward a goal of superior performance. Essentially, the talent manager can teach a star how to become one.
Define Star Performance
Companies can improve their success in developing star performers by taking two actions. One, define star performance, and two, identify work strategies consistent among star performers and absent among mediocre workers.
Many organizations have not defined superior performance. Those that have not tend to be average performers in the marketplace. Companies that want to outpace the competition should commit to defining star performance, not just for one job but for all the key positions in the organization.
Many companies use something similar to a performance-based job description to define essential job tasks, minimum expectations and breakthrough outcomes in the job. A star performer will consistently achieve the break through outcomes.
How Do Star Performers Work?
The key to converting average or mediocre people to star status lies, first, in determining their competencies and, second, in coaching them in the application of those competencies. The Bell Lab study identified nine strategies star performers use to get their work done. They are as follows:
Taking initiative: Star performers don’t just inform someone of an error, they correct the error. The mediocre don’t.
Networking: Star performers anticipate their needs and solicit outside input prior to beginning a project. The mediocre wait until there’s a need and then look for help.
Self-management: Stars know that self-management goes beyond time management and includes management of effort and knowledge. The mediocre feel time management is all that’s needed.
Teamwork effectiveness: Star performers are comfortable being followers or leaders. The mediocre tend to push too hard for leadership roles.
Leadership: Star performers know small leadership roles are as important as bigger, more visible ones. The mediocre often are disappointed with smaller, less viable leadership assignments and, as a result, perform at a level expressing their displeasure.
Followership: Star performers are aware of the value of following, as well as leading, and understand the need to contribute to the leader and the team’s performance. The mediocre often are difficult in a team setting and more focused on getting individual credit.
Perspective: Superior performers understand how their immediate work fits into the “big picture.” The star performer is invested in taking on other viewpoints, such as those of the customer, manager or other team members. The mediocre often see a world defined by the length of their reach. They tend to have difficulty accepting others’ thoughts and ideas.
Show-and-tell: Star performers are master presenters. The mediocre are PowerPoint specialists.
Organizational savvy: Star performers understand how they contribute to the overall performance of the organization and are capable of navigating through an organization’s competing interests.
The mediocre often are perplexed with organization politics and hide behind the mantra of not being a “political person.”Understanding these strategies and defining them for the workforce is a powerful tool and is necessary to convert mediocre workers into star performers. It is not easy, but it is worth it. In these difficult times, adding the equivalent of seven average performers to the workforce by converting just one to star status is a strategy that addresses the pressing need to do more with less.
Stephen Blakesley is managing partner of GMS Talent LP and author of Strategic Hiring – Tomorrow’s Benefits Today.
During the past 20 years, executives, consultants and educators have had a lot to say about how to discover, develop and keep talent. Discovering, developing or retaining talented people is of little value, however, unless the talent manager can engage them to perform at high levels.
People with talent fail at an alarming rate within organizations. According to Robert Kelley and Janet Caplan, researchers who studied workers at the once prestigious Bell Labs in the late 1980s and early 1990s, most talented hires wind up as average or below-average performers.
Kelley and Caplan found that at Bell Labs and its competitors, 85 to 90 percent of the extremely talented people hired never rose beyond average when it came to productivity. They also found that 10 to 15 percent of hires who rose to “star performance” status were eight times more productive than the average or mediocre performers.
Let’s say you are responsible for the results of an organization employing 100 people. If your organization is average, seven of those people are star performers, 83 are average and 10 are slackers. Now let’s say, you encounter an economic climate that prohibits hiring and compels you to do better with what you have. What would be your strategy?
There are very talented people masquerading as average or mediocre performers. If you could convert just one mediocre performer to star status, the value of that conversion, according to the Bell Labs study, would be equivalent to adding seven average performers to the workforce at no additional cost to the organization.
To uncover why talented people underperform, begin with a simple premise: It is human nature to want to do well, to want to be the best you can be. Thus, if the talent manager “dangled the bait” of being a star performer in front of talented employees, some would take it.
Many talented employees don’t become stars because they don’t know how, or they have no real idea of what a star performer looks like in terms of achievements and accomplishments. If talent managers can address those two issues, they have a greater chance of catching a star.
When crafting a plan to address those issues, there are two possible applications. One would be as part of an on-boarding program or process for new employees, and the other is as remedial training and education of the existing workforce. Time spent educating talented people on how they can leverage their special abilities to become even more than they imagined promises an ROI beyond expectations. Lethargic and apathetic employees come alive, and people once without direction, move with more certainty toward a goal of superior performance. Essentially, the talent manager can teach a star how to become one.
Define Star Performance
Companies can improve their success in developing star performers by taking two actions. One, define star performance, and two, identify work strategies consistent among star performers and absent among mediocre workers.
Many organizations have not defined superior performance. Those that have not tend to be average performers in the marketplace. Companies that want to outpace the competition should commit to defining star performance, not just for one job but for all the key positions in the organization.
Many companies use something similar to a performance-based job description to define essential job tasks, minimum expectations and breakthrough outcomes in the job. A star performer will consistently achieve the break through outcomes.
How Do Star Performers Work?
The key to converting average or mediocre people to star status lies, first, in determining their competencies and, second, in coaching them in the application of those competencies. The Bell Lab study identified nine strategies star performers use to get their work done. They are as follows:
Taking initiative: Star performers don’t just inform someone of an error, they correct the error. The mediocre don’t.
Networking: Star performers anticipate their needs and solicit outside input prior to beginning a project. The mediocre wait until there’s a need and then look for help.
Self-management: Stars know that self-management goes beyond time management and includes management of effort and knowledge. The mediocre feel time management is all that’s needed.
Teamwork effectiveness: Star performers are comfortable being followers or leaders. The mediocre tend to push too hard for leadership roles.
Leadership: Star performers know small leadership roles are as important as bigger, more visible ones. The mediocre often are disappointed with smaller, less viable leadership assignments and, as a result, perform at a level expressing their displeasure.
Followership: Star performers are aware of the value of following, as well as leading, and understand the need to contribute to the leader and the team’s performance. The mediocre often are difficult in a team setting and more focused on getting individual credit.
Perspective: Superior performers understand how their immediate work fits into the “big picture.” The star performer is invested in taking on other viewpoints, such as those of the customer, manager or other team members. The mediocre often see a world defined by the length of their reach. They tend to have difficulty accepting others’ thoughts and ideas.
Show-and-tell: Star performers are master presenters. The mediocre are PowerPoint specialists.
Organizational savvy: Star performers understand how they contribute to the overall performance of the organization and are capable of navigating through an organization’s competing interests.
The mediocre often are perplexed with organization politics and hide behind the mantra of not being a “political person.”Understanding these strategies and defining them for the workforce is a powerful tool and is necessary to convert mediocre workers into star performers. It is not easy, but it is worth it. In these difficult times, adding the equivalent of seven average performers to the workforce by converting just one to star status is a strategy that addresses the pressing need to do more with less.
Stephen Blakesley is managing partner of GMS Talent LP and author of Strategic Hiring – Tomorrow’s Benefits Today.
Friday, January 23, 2009
If Work Was Like America's Biggest Loser
I had the opportunity to watch America's Biggest Loser the other night and I was fascinated by the contestant elimination system.
For those of you that have not seen the show it is about weigh loss in a competitive environment and it culminates in one "loser" who loses the most percentage of original body weight. For those of you that know me, you realize that I will not qualify as a participant on the show.
The fascination comes from a process that the two people who lose the least amount of weight fall below a yellow line and then a single participant is voted off by the remaining contestants.
Imagine for a moment, a workplace in which the poorest performers during a period of time were below a yellow line. A team meeting was conducted and then one of the poor performers were voted off the team.
It makes you wonder about the value of public disclosure of performance factors and the competitive nature that exists in most people when challenged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
