360 degree appraisal and performance reviews

If I make the effort will I reach my goals?

A continued research effort around our performance review whitepaper led me back to a model we work with to describe how performance related pay fits in with performance appraisals.  The model is built from a range of standard theories - Vroom's expectancy theory, Locke's goal setting, Porter/Lawlers views on intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and others.  Diagramatically it is represented as follows



The model demonstrates the basic "line of sight" required for performance related pay to work.  If I increase my effort, then my performance should increase which lead to rewards that are aligned with my personal goals.

To achieve the link between effort and performance we need : effective goal setting for alignment, we need the opportunity to deliver that performance (e.g. the external market allows it) and the ability (often where training plays a part).  We also need to be sure that our role is clear - we don't want to be doing the wrong thing!

That performance is then rewarded - either through a feeling of a job well done, or other intrinsic rewards or through extrinsic rewards such as pay and bonuses.  That reinforcement (think Pavlov's dogs) makes us want to do it again!  Finally those rewards need to be linked to something we are seeking - our personal goals.

When put like this it leaves me a little cold and has a large company imposing managerialistic processes feel about it.  But, if you are implementing performance related pay it forms a very useful checklist and model to have in mind as to why and how you link the sections on the performance appraisal form with the pay and bonus and of course why you are doing performance appraisals at all.

Brendan

Anonymity and confidentiality in 360 degree appraisal

I was reading a book "Leveraging the Impact of 360 degree feedback" and was interested in the author's focus on anonymity.  For them 360 degree feedback required anonymity even to the extent that they saw a downside of narrative feedback being the potential for identifying raters.

One of our largest clients has just run 360 feedback where the raters were named.  I have not heard of any issues at all nor is it obvious that the ratings were effected by the lack of anonymity.

Our experience is that anonymity is more worried about than it is an issue in reality.  But confidentiality is crucial.  My report is confidential to me - how I rated someone else is something I'm usually more than happy to be exposed.

I believe this distinction is important.  If a rater needs to hide behind anonymity it implies they would be uncomfortable giving this feedback to the person directly.  We see 360 feedback's potential in its ability to give rounded feedback in a straight-forward manner - we don't see it as a route for people to say things they wouldn't otherwise say.  We know that this happens and sometimes it is a good thing but generally anonymity is overplayed.

Keeping data and reports confidential is another story and crucial to the success of the process.

Brendan

Performance appraisal every day?

Performance Appraisal every day sounds slightly 'nightmarish' in concept to most people, but let's consider it in the context of effective Performance Management.

An appraisal is simply a method of assessing performance; typically this is an annual affair, sometimes with an interim review at the 6 month mark.

Traditionally, it encompasses a review of objectives and progress towards their accomplishment, any obstacles that may be inhibiting performance, learning & development needs in support of meeting goals and career progression, a future look at any new goals, and a final comments section.

Reviewing these elements every day may not be practical, but a review once a week perhaps? Once a fortnight? Once a month? Once a quarter?

I suspect, as with many people I have spoken with, there is an underlying feeling that whilst once a week or fortnight might be deemed excessive or impractical, but that as you consider once a month or quarter, one starts to muse "Hmmm, maybe once a month/quarter would be sensible....perhaps once a year is pretty ineffective..".

No great scientific study to say what is the optimum number of appraisals one should have over the course of the year, just a common sense instinct that tells most of us to say to our team members......"We really should meet more often, you know?".

More of our clients are adhering to this approach of more regular appraisal meetings supported with a simple online form to capture the conversation....as Tesco would say "Every little helps".

How different roles write feedback in 360 degree appraisals

I hadn't thought about this for a few years - I once wrote my MBA thesis on an analysis of narrative feedback in 360 degree appraisal.  I was giving some feedback last week and I was struck by the use of different language by the different roles - supervisor, peer, self and direct reports.

So, I dug out the thesis - the dust is still settling.  Much of what the analysis demonstrated has shown itself empirically over the last few years of working in the field.

First, bosses use business speak more than the other roles.  Essentially, they transfer the behavioural statements into business related issues.  Not right or wrong - but worth knowing.

Second, bosses are directional - they tell the recipient what they should do using words like "must", "should", needs to".  Other roles tend to not provide advice on the solution to the identified development need.  This can also follow from differing standards which can lead to bosses scoring lower than other rating groups.

All roles use the narrative to contextualise the ratings they have been giving.  Often they explain why a certain score was given (and demonstrate why using averages is pointless for most 360 feedback) and in many cases they counterbalance their rating with an insight into the situation where it happens and how they have seen improvement or otherwise over the last few months.

Rater bias is a rich subject area in 360 degree appraisals.  I would strongly recommend working with people that understand it, the dangers of averaged reporting because of rater bias, and the power of narrative feedback to allow a trained debriefer to recognise it.

Brendan