什么方法能取代人人厭惡的績效考評
|
親愛的安妮：我差不多又到了對28名下屬進行年度績效考核的時候了。有些公司已經(jīng)取消了這一乏味冗長的流程，我非常羨慕這些公司的經(jīng)理們。令人鼓舞的是，我所在的這家中型制造企業(yè)似乎也打算用更頻繁（同時也更有用）的反饋模式取代年度績效考核。 人力資源部門仍然要求定期報送每名員工的“進度報告”，但他們把決定權(quán)交給了每名經(jīng)理，由他們決定自身團隊的績效評估方式。我正在研究在新的一年里應(yīng)該采取哪種方式。我想問的是，你是否知道哪種績效評估方法既簡單又有效？我想用最簡單的流程實現(xiàn)最佳效果?！テ澅さ钠ぬ?/p> 親愛的皮特：正如你所說的，很多公司正在嘗試取消年終考核，他們的理由是充分的。據(jù)薪酬咨詢公司韜?；輴倢Ρ泵赖貐^(qū)169家公司進行的一項最新調(diào)查，只有大約四分之一（26%）的經(jīng)理人和員工認為這種傳統(tǒng)的流程有效。北美地區(qū)約有50%的雇主表示，他們正在取消年度考評，用關(guān)于目標和績效的實時對話取而代之。 咨詢機構(gòu)Big 5績效管理公司負責人、《終于管用的績效評估》一書的作者羅杰?弗格森指出：“如今商業(yè)的發(fā)展速度太快了，年度考核的效率已經(jīng)跟不上了。人們想要的是即時和有意義的反饋，這就是為什么好的經(jīng)理人每天，甚至整天對員工進行輔導(dǎo)，這種輔導(dǎo)并沒有正式的流程或體系?！?/p> 不過，弗格森還指出，為了應(yīng)對員工通過均等就業(yè)機會委員和國家勞工關(guān)系委員會提出索賠或訴訟，人力資源部門還是得有一些能夠證明員工績效的文件材料才行?！爱吘刮覀兪莻€非常喜歡訴訟的社會。”這就是為什么完全取消正式考核流程的企業(yè)只占所有受訪企業(yè)的8%，這也是為什么很多公司的人力部門仍然要求書面的“進度報告”。 因此，除了你可能已經(jīng)在團隊中實施的日常反饋，你還能使用哪些簡單有效的書面評估流程呢？弗格森給出的“Big 5”績效管理法不失為一種好辦法。在他擔任摩根大通和Fluor等公司人力資源高管的30年職業(yè)生涯中，他就是用這種方法取代了傳統(tǒng)的年度考評流程。 “Big 5”績效管理法主要是讓員工和經(jīng)理回答兩個問題：自從我們上一次會面后，你獲得的5個最大的成就是什么？到我們下一次會面前，你最大的5個目標是什么？ 這些問題的答案通常都是比較簡短的列表，基本上不超過半頁紙。兩次評估的間隔短則一個星期（很多銷售團隊都是一周一評），長則一個月。弗格森表示，這樣做的意義是讓員工“保持靈活和專注，產(chǎn)生緊迫感。”當然，每份報告也能讓你簡單明了地了解團隊成員的工作進度，你也可以據(jù)此給出一些糾正建議。 弗格森表示，“Big 5”評估法的一大優(yōu)勢是，它建立在人們?nèi)粘?yīng)對工作的方式之上，反映的是大多數(shù)人都會制定的“待辦事項”清單。“我們已經(jīng)做了大量的規(guī)劃、排序和報告。為什么不用文件把它固定下來，并且用它來做績效評估呢？” “Big 5”評估法的一個附帶好處是，“大家都喜歡把他們的貢獻歸功于自己?！备ジ裆貞浀?，在一家采取了這種方法的公司，有一位前臺接待員質(zhì)疑稱，她不知道自己每個月能否總結(jié)出5個成就和5個目標來，因為“她做的所有的事情就是接電話。結(jié)果在她第一次寫完‘Big 5’報告后，她對我說：‘直到我把它寫下來以前，我都不知道我自己竟然做了這么多事情！’”給每個人一個正式的機會，定期向老板小小地自我吹捧一番，“可以在職場中創(chuàng)造正能量。” 當然，不管兩次報告的間隔多長，你都必須得留出時間與你的團隊成員進行討論。“如果一名經(jīng)理沒有意識到員工發(fā)展的重要性，不愿意在這上面花時間，那么任何一個體系都沒法讓他重視對員工的輔導(dǎo)?！?/p> 不過，由于“Big 5”評估的頻率要比年度考評頻繁得多，而且它更關(guān)注即期和短期的效果，而不是遙遠的過去，因此，你花在討論績效問題上的時間，也更不可能被浪費。 需要提醒的是，要小心“馬屁精”。弗格森表示：“如果經(jīng)理們想保留或加入傳統(tǒng)考評流程的一些元素，比如對員工績效進行排名，那么‘馬屁精’就會出現(xiàn)。如果這種情況發(fā)生了，那么過不了多久，不管是‘Big 5’評估法，還是其他新方法，都會變得非常像那個我們已經(jīng)厭倦并打算改革的舊流程?！保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng)） 譯者：樸成奎 審校：任文科 |
Dear Annie: Once again it’s almost time to do year-end performance appraisals for the 28 people who report to me, and I’m envying managers atcompanies that have gotten rid of this tedious, time-wasting process. One encouraging thing is that my employer, a midsized manufacturer, also seems to be moving in the direction of replacing annual reviews with more frequent (and useful) kinds of feedback. HR still wants periodic “progress reports” on each employee, but they’ve left it up to each manager to decide what form these should take for his or her team. I’ve been researching what approach to take in the year ahead and I’m just wondering, do you know of any simple, effective way to evaluate performance? I’m looking for maximum impact with minimum B.S. — Pittsburgh Pete Dear Pete: As you’ve gathered, lots of companies are trying to move away from annual reviews, and for good reason. Only about one quarter (26%) of managers and employees think the traditional process works, according to a new survey of 169 North American companies by compensation consultants Towers Watson, and 50% of employers in North America say they are scrapping yearly appraisals in favor of real-time conversations about goals and performance. “Business moves much too quickly today for annual reviews to be effective,” observes Roger Ferguson, head of consulting firm Big 5 Performance Management and author of Finally! Performance Assessment That Works. “People want immediate and meaningful feedback, which is why good managers coach their employees all day, every day, without a formal process or system.” At the same time, though, your HR department still needs “documentation in the event of an EEOC or NLRB claim or charge,” Ferguson adds. “We are, after all, a very litigious society.” That’s a major reason only 8% of the employers in the Towers Watson survey say they’ve gotten rid of formal evaluations entirely (and why your HR department is still asking for “progress reports” in writing). So, in addition to the day-to-day feedback you’re probably already giving your team, what kind of simple, useful paper trail can you create? One approach is what Ferguson calls Big 5 performance management, which he used to replace annual reviews during his 30-year career as a senior executive in HR and operations at JPMorgan Chase and Fluor. Big 5 asks employees and managers to focus on two questions: What are your five most significant accomplishments since our last meeting? And what are your five biggest goals until next time? These can, and probably should, be short lists — often no more than half a page — and the time period between them can be a week, as with many sales teams, or a month. The point is to keep people “nimble and focused, creating a sense of urgency,” Ferguson says. Each report also, of course, gives you a straightforward way to tell team members how they’re doing, and suggest any changes you’d like to see. One advantage of Big 5, Ferguson says, is that it builds on the way people naturally approach their work, mirroring the to-do lists most of us make anyway. “We already do a great deal of planning, prioritizing, and reporting. Why not document that effort and use it for appraisal as well?” A side benefit of Big 5 is that “most employees enjoy taking credit for their contributions,” he notes. At one Big 5 client company that adopted the method, a receptionist doubted she could come up with five achievements and five goals per month, because “she said all she did was answer the phone,” Ferguson recalls. “After her first Big 5 report, though, she told me, ‘Until I wrote it down, I had no idea how much I get done around here!’” Giving everyone a formal chance to brag a little to the boss on a regular basis “can create energy in the workplace.” Of course, you’ll have to set time aside, at whatever intervals make the most sense for your team, for discussions with your team members, and “no system can make a manager care about coaching if he or she doesn’t see employee development as important and worth spending time on,” notes Ferguson. But since Big 5 conversations take place so much more often than every 12 months, and focus on the present and the immediate future (rather than the distant past), the time you invest in talking about performance is far less likely to be wasted. A word of caution: Beware of “creep,” which Ferguson says “occurs when managers want to keep, or add back, some elements of the old appraisal process — assigning employees a numerical ranking, for example. If that happens, before long, Big 5 or any other new approach can begin to look a lot like the tired old process we’re attempting to revise.” |
最新文章