Al Jones

Peter Drucker had been one of, if not the most powerful thinker about organizations in the world. All organizations exist to transform inputs into outputs of higher value. One can never loose sight of this. Today we need to have the collective energy of all employees working towards ensuring the value transformation process is working really well. Your concept of self organization is a powerful one being used in some organizations very successfully. You have a lot of great suggestions I really like. My sense is that we need to change some of the fundamental ideas about how we we measure performance at the individual level. Once we do this a new label might emerge

Sergio Bogazzi

Thanks Al,
I agree with you regarding Drucker. If you have any more ideas for how to measure individual performance let's incorporate them into this definition.
Sergio

Sherryl Stalinski

Sergio, I very much like this proposed re-label as well. One thing, however, that continues to occur to me is that we have to guard against creating yet another "cookie cutter" one-size-fits-all solution. Performance Assurance can also incorporate knowledge about personality traits (five factor, MBTI, whatever data is available), Situational Leadership (Blanchard) information (e.g., 'performance assurance' for a brand-new college hire with high enthusiasm but low competence will be much different than 'performance assurance' for a seasoned expert who has become disengaged for whatever reasons).

One of the thoughts I see recurring on these threads is almost a naive assumption that all employees will be self-motivating as long as they have those "Pink requirements" (autonomy, mastery, purpose). The truth is, anyone new on a task is going to want less autonomy and more coaching/support so they can gain that mastery. Likewise, if there a (even perceived) deficit in pay (e.g., "my lower level Maslow needs aren't being met") then purpose will be overshadowed by the primary requirement of reward (again, whether real or perceived).

*I'd like to volunteer to help with this definition.

Sergio Bogazzi

Hi Sherryl,
Excellent response. I like the idea of tailoring Performance Assurance around an individual's strengths. I also agree with you that not everyone fits neatly into Pink's autonomy/mastery/purpose definition of motivation. I know many people who are not ashamed to say they are primarily motivated by fear and money and that's ok too.

Having said that, I tried to make Performance Assurance about the mindset and practices that need to gain traction across the organization to promote sustained high-performance.

Any suggestions on how to improve on this definition? For example, what about implementing a hiring process that includes MBTI/StrengthsFinder type evaluations for all candidates? This would give the organization the additional information to factor strengths into its selection process, as well as effectively staff project teams once the individual is on board.

Sergio

Sherryl Stalinski

Performance Assurance might have several interrelated practices, and I agree it begins pre-hire, although I tend to hesitate on using any sort of profile assessments pre-hire, since they tend to be given far more weight than they deserve.

One thing you say here is key, about creating a "mindset and practices that need to gain traction across the organization to promote sustained high performance." So, a simple, easy-to-propogate model that includes the values/philosophy ("why") as well as clear actionable practices ("what" and "how"). I believe one of these values + action components might be something like "because every individual has different strengths, values and beliefs, it is critical for managers to learn the people skills needed to understand the needs, motivations, strengths and areas for improvement of each employee they are responsible for."

Another component might be something like: "High Performance is only sustainable when managers are accountable for assuring the employee has what they need to excel, therefore, Performance Assurance is a 365-day-a-year practice, not a scheduled, artificial and ineffective one-way 'performance review' session."

I've been working for some time on a year-round list of "Performance Assurance" activities that managers can use as a guideline and apply based on the needs, aspirations and temperment of each employee.

To tie into the connection with rewards, the value/practices might be something like this:
"Employees perform best when they are payed competitively, and are highly engaged in work that provides purpose, autonomy and opportunities for development and mastery. Therefore, our compensation strategy includes opportunities to reward the highest performers, assure that all employees are compensated based on reliable salary and market data. Managers are held accountable for creating work culture focused on purpose and mastery, and that each employee is provided the guidance and direction needed relative to their experience and ability to drive and manage their work."

The "practice" around 'reward for the highest performers' could be anything from spot bonuses to higher-than-budget merit increases based on multi-manager calibrated "ratings." In my current company (pretty 'old-school' global engineering), I could imagine that documented appraisals--WITHOUT RATINGS (narrative only) would be submitted only for perhaps the top 10%-15% of employees (give or take) they want to recommend for high increases, promotions, etc. Performance problems are handled completely separately in a PIP/corrective action process.

Sergio Bogazzi

Sherryl,
Excellent input. I will incorporate your ideas into the revised definition by tomorrow. Keep you posted.
Sergio

Michele Zanini

Sergio, I really like the new label you propose...would really welcome your thoughts on how this could be operationalized or at least experimented with. For instance, if you take a "slice" of performance management like goal-setting or forecasting, how might you get started in practice?

thanks for you contribution

Michele

Sergio Bogazzi

Hi Michele,
I appreciate your reply. I'll incorporate an implementation of this shortly. Thanks again.
Sergio

You need to register in order to submit a comment.

Join the MIX Now or Login

Al Jones

Peter Drucker had been one of, if not the most powerful thinker about organizations in the world. All organizations exist to transform inputs into outputs of higher value. One can never loose sight of this. Today we need to have the collective energy of all employees working towards ensuring the value transformation process is working really well. Your concept of self organization is a powerful one being used in some organizations very successfully. You have a lot of great suggestions I really like. My sense is that we need to change some of the fundamental ideas about how we we measure performance at the individual level. Once we do this a new label might emerge

Sergio Bogazzi

Thanks Al,
I agree with you regarding Drucker. If you have any more ideas for how to measure individual performance let's incorporate them into this definition.
Sergio

Sherryl Stalinski

Sergio, I very much like this proposed re-label as well. One thing, however, that continues to occur to me is that we have to guard against creating yet another "cookie cutter" one-size-fits-all solution. Performance Assurance can also incorporate knowledge about personality traits (five factor, MBTI, whatever data is available), Situational Leadership (Blanchard) information (e.g., 'performance assurance' for a brand-new college hire with high enthusiasm but low competence will be much different than 'performance assurance' for a seasoned expert who has become disengaged for whatever reasons).

One of the thoughts I see recurring on these threads is almost a naive assumption that all employees will be self-motivating as long as they have those "Pink requirements" (autonomy, mastery, purpose). The truth is, anyone new on a task is going to want less autonomy and more coaching/support so they can gain that mastery. Likewise, if there a (even perceived) deficit in pay (e.g., "my lower level Maslow needs aren't being met") then purpose will be overshadowed by the primary requirement of reward (again, whether real or perceived).

*I'd like to volunteer to help with this definition.

Sergio Bogazzi

Hi Sherryl,
Excellent response. I like the idea of tailoring Performance Assurance around an individual's strengths. I also agree with you that not everyone fits neatly into Pink's autonomy/mastery/purpose definition of motivation. I know many people who are not ashamed to say they are primarily motivated by fear and money and that's ok too.

Having said that, I tried to make Performance Assurance about the mindset and practices that need to gain traction across the organization to promote sustained high-performance.

Any suggestions on how to improve on this definition? For example, what about implementing a hiring process that includes MBTI/StrengthsFinder type evaluations for all candidates? This would give the organization the additional information to factor strengths into its selection process, as well as effectively staff project teams once the individual is on board.

Sergio

Sherryl Stalinski

Performance Assurance might have several interrelated practices, and I agree it begins pre-hire, although I tend to hesitate on using any sort of profile assessments pre-hire, since they tend to be given far more weight than they deserve.

One thing you say here is key, about creating a "mindset and practices that need to gain traction across the organization to promote sustained high performance." So, a simple, easy-to-propogate model that includes the values/philosophy ("why") as well as clear actionable practices ("what" and "how"). I believe one of these values + action components might be something like "because every individual has different strengths, values and beliefs, it is critical for managers to learn the people skills needed to understand the needs, motivations, strengths and areas for improvement of each employee they are responsible for."

Another component might be something like: "High Performance is only sustainable when managers are accountable for assuring the employee has what they need to excel, therefore, Performance Assurance is a 365-day-a-year practice, not a scheduled, artificial and ineffective one-way 'performance review' session."

I've been working for some time on a year-round list of "Performance Assurance" activities that managers can use as a guideline and apply based on the needs, aspirations and temperment of each employee.

To tie into the connection with rewards, the value/practices might be something like this:
"Employees perform best when they are payed competitively, and are highly engaged in work that provides purpose, autonomy and opportunities for development and mastery. Therefore, our compensation strategy includes opportunities to reward the highest performers, assure that all employees are compensated based on reliable salary and market data. Managers are held accountable for creating work culture focused on purpose and mastery, and that each employee is provided the guidance and direction needed relative to their experience and ability to drive and manage their work."

The "practice" around 'reward for the highest performers' could be anything from spot bonuses to higher-than-budget merit increases based on multi-manager calibrated "ratings." In my current company (pretty 'old-school' global engineering), I could imagine that documented appraisals--WITHOUT RATINGS (narrative only) would be submitted only for perhaps the top 10%-15% of employees (give or take) they want to recommend for high increases, promotions, etc. Performance problems are handled completely separately in a PIP/corrective action process.

Sergio Bogazzi

Sherryl,
Excellent input. I will incorporate your ideas into the revised definition by tomorrow. Keep you posted.
Sergio

Michele Zanini

Sergio, I really like the new label you propose...would really welcome your thoughts on how this could be operationalized or at least experimented with. For instance, if you take a "slice" of performance management like goal-setting or forecasting, how might you get started in practice?

thanks for you contribution

Michele

Sergio Bogazzi

Hi Michele,
I appreciate your reply. I'll incorporate an implementation of this shortly. Thanks again.
Sergio