[Ailist] Appreciative Valuations of Staff

[Roger Davies]

Sorry this is long.

I think a lot of the stress is caused by differing visions and
interpretations of what is required. Problems and stress arise when there is
a lack of clarity or more than one agenda. It's my belief that organizations
function at their best when there is a clear sense of purpose and few, if
any, alternate agendas. Actually we appraise every single day by virtue of
our interactions with each other. 

As Kenneth says, all appraisals should be made in the context of the benefit
that the individual brings to the organization. All too often, in my
experience, the use of employee appraisal systems is not to discover and
develop these qualities. They are used as a means to apportion compensation
and as a means to identify areas where individuals require training in order
to get them 'up to standard'. This is why I believe they are viewed in a
less than positive way. 

I still think the problems run deeper than methodologies and relationships.
There's something about the cult of 'performance measurement' that's
fundamentally wrong or misunderstood. In business the performance
measurement cult has led to a focus on a small number of short term targets
aimed at delivering this year's financial performance and that's what
everyone is being judged against. It's driven by the greed of shareholders.
Many of the long term, valuable, nurturing contributions made by individuals
are overlooked or ignored because they cannot explicitly be tied to a short
term financial benefit. All that is required to become successful within the
organization is meeting this year's targets. So what happens....

New employee - Meets the targets, is relatively unconcerned for the long
term, gets acceptable personal reward for their performance.

Mid term employee - has reached a level where positions to move up into are
fewer, competition for those positions is more fierce, is usually managing
people and sees the business case and employee case of most disputes. They
do most of the evaluations and realize the only way they can remain in the
organization is to somehow balance what they believe is right with what they
are expected to deliver. At the same time their boss is usually in a similar
position and does not want to get leap frogged. The bulk of appraisals are
therefore manipulated to keep as many people in their place as possible.

Within sight of retirement employee - is going to make sure they stay
employed. They will not question issues that seem to be wrong and generally
will not constructively mentor other employees. I have seen them used to
push through initiatives because they will deliver regardless of their
personal commitment to the initiative.

Result - Financial performance is good and no-one tells the CEO the
foundation is crumbling. 

Too often we're measuring the wrong things and therefore focusing on the
wrong things. We treat financial success as the generator of future success
when in fact it's an outcome of our organization's ability to do business
effectively.

It's not the appraisal methodology that's at fault. It's how it is delivered
and used and this is done within a wider, and to my mind, flawed context.
Organizations will not change until they change how they view themselves and
their place in the world in which they operate. Until they value their
employee's contributions and realize that they are not a structure designed
to disseminate control and authority but are structures designed to harness
the power of each of their members and let that take them where they will be
successful.

Roger


-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Gergen [mailto:kgergen1 at swarthmore.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 7:22 AM
To: Michael Holdstock
Cc: Roger Davies; 'Anne Radford'; Bill Scott; ailist at lists.business.utah.edu
Subject: Re: [Ailist] Appreciative Valuations of Staff


I like very much this emphasis on dialogue. However, one of the  
possibilities we explore in The Appreciative Organization is that of  
shifting these dialogues from the individual to the relationship. The  
attempt is to try to understand personal goals and progress as  
embedded within relationships, and within these valuative dialogues  
to inquire not so much into the individual's attributes or qualities,  
but into the character of the relationships on which the well-being  
of the organization (and its participants) ultimately depends.

I read a recent report that indicated that for the vast proportion of  
organizational participants, the greatest source of stress was their  
immediate supervisor or boss. This would suggest that such dialogues  
might well be directed to "how are we doing?" "What are we doing well  
together?" If anyone has explored such possibilities, I would love to  
hear more. Ken



On Apr 29, 2008, at 6:06 AM, Michael Holdstock wrote:

> I haven't followed the whole of this thread, but my ten öre's worth: I 
> am finding it increasingly meaningful to break this staff
> development and
> support process up into the following bits:
>
> the development dialogue - with agreed long and short term
> professional and
> personal developmental goals
> (where do you want to get to?) (D1,2,3)
>
> measures of development effectiveness related to agreed goals (how do 
> we check up on your progress towards your goal and help you
> stay on
> track?) (D 3-4)
>
> the reward negotiation.
> (what financial and other compensations are we agreed on?)
>
> There is no water-tight compartmentalisation since all three relate
> to one
> another. They can all be handled appreciatively/supportively and  
> retain
> their meaningfulness and bite.
>
> Dealing with them as separate but related issues, I have found,
> makes the
> whole situation easier to handle. Maintaining a dialogue throughout  
> the year
> related to the first two means that an ongoing interest and  
> awareness of
> development becomes a natural part of the leadership function.
> To facilitate this continuum one organisation that I have  
> collaborated with
> instituted the idea of "job chats" - at least quarterly, as part of  
> the
> follow-up process to the more formal development dialogue.
>
>
> Mike
> Karlstad, Sweden
>
>
>
>
>
>