For the better...? (The Process of Performance Appraisal)

Recently, I have been engaged in discussion with my feiend and colleague Dale Weeks, about best practices in performance appraisal. The reasons commonly given by organizations for doing this, are well known. We want to assess worker strengths and weaknesses; we want to help make good plans for individual development; we want to reward superior performers; we want to document bad performers in case we have to take punitive action.

The debate of course, is whether the traditional systems of appraisal do more harm than good. Do the bad truly get punished? Do those getting rewards really deserve them? Are such rewards more divise then motivating? Do supervisors really have tough conversations to help the weak and encourage the strong?

My own experience over more than 30 years inside several organizations, is that these traditional systems do in fact do more harm than good. In this, I tend to agree with Dr. W. Edwards Deming, and those who followed him (Peter Scholtes; the Coens and Jenkins book on abolishing appraisals etc.).

In my recent correspondence with Dale, I noted my six years in a good sized and diverse public organization. I was responsible for training all supervisors about appraisals every year, and for coaching them through the annual process. Almost all of them hated having to do this. But worse than the work of generating the appraisals, were the consequences of what they did. Without overt conspiring, there were the common issues of upward "grade creep" and "range compression" that often afflict traditional appraisal systems. Fewer than 2% of the supervisors actually used the annual assessment meeting to shape development plans for subordinates. to make themselves look better, supervisors tended to increase ratings for their group, so they would not suffer coercive comparisons to their own colleagues. Oops.

There are better ways.

Coens and Jenkins may have been the first to use real data to refute and address the traditional reasons for appraisals. Moreover, they offer alternatives to address each reason/excuse. there is a recent book by Samuel Culbert with a similar title. Hopefully it will reach more people, and continue to influence thought and action in a more helpful way.

New Post to Baldrige Blog on Classroom Learning Improvement

Here is the post I placed on the Blogrige site, in response to other comments about improving classroom learning in schools:


http://nist.typepad.com/baldrige_program/

I draw on several sources, primarily the work of Seymour Sarason, and Ron Heifetz. Neither talks overtly about complexity science, but both clearly understand the nature of complex human dynamics.

Enjoy!

Naked Emperors: Last Desperate Acts of those to Whom Change WILL Come..

In an exchange on Twitter last night (and you can find me there as @complexified), I was discussing the failures of "command and control" management (I can not call it "leadership") in organizations. My conversation was with Valdis Krebs, the well-known pioneer in social network analysis. Valdis referred to such behaviors as "ossification," and noted that in time (sooner rather than later, we think), such management will shatter and collapse.

This follows on a recent IBM report, in which many CEOs indicate their concern for being able to cope with increasing complexity in the world.

Totally understandable. For too long, too many have acted in what I'd call the "as if..." mode of problem-solving. Such managers have failed to note and understand (much less, apply) the ideas of thinkers/teachers such as Harvard's Ron Heifetz, or the UK's David Snowden. Ron has written and taught for years about the distinction between what he calls "technical" and "adaptive" problems in organizations. Dave Snowden has crafted his "Cynefin" model which posits a dynamic set of related problem domains: simple; complicated; complex; and chaotic. In each domain, Dave offers an optimal leadership strategy for assessing and responding to the challenge at hand.

I see the Cynefin framework as a further logical expansion of Heifetz' ideas. The Simple and Complicated relate to "technical" problems - those that can generally be solved with the right mix of knowledge and resources. The Complex and Chaotic domains seem to relate to Heifetz' "adaptive" challenges- those that require people to change what they think, believe, and do.

Over the years, I have observed managers treating complex/adaptive problems AS IF they were complicated/technical. I believe there is always some level of the former in the latter (see the recent Toyota problems, for example).

Most recently, I have been involved in fascinating but often disturbing conflicts within a global non-profit organization. The leaders are the "Naked Emperors" to whom I have referred on Twitter and on this blog. They seek to exercise strict command and control over vast and various networks of volunteer member-leaders. Well, oops. Treating people AS IF they were machines on a factory floor just does not work. Treating people AS IF you and not they have all the answers to making things work, isn't happening either.

Today's leaders need to admit that command & control will not succeed in a complex organizational and world environment. Instead, they need to develop adaptive capacities, that enhance communication, engagement, trust, and satisfaction. In this way, organizations will become more agile, more innovative, and better able to respond to changes in their environment (Darwin's actual quote). Those who cling to the old C&C ways, will find their options and success diminishing, and in time, their authority and prerogative will blow away like so much dust in the wind.

The Old Ball Game... and the pursuit of excellence

This morning I saw a post on the Baldrige Award blog site, about the missed umpire call in last week's baseball game. The post was by Harry Hertz, Director of the Baldrige Award, and Harry analyzes the mistake in the context of Baldrige categories (what else?!).

As a fan of both baseball and process improvement, I offered my own blog reply. You can read ths comments at:

http://nist.typepad.com/baldrige_program/2010/06/what-would-baldrige-say-about-the-detroit-perfect-game.html#comments