[Ailist] Appreciative Valuations of Staff

[rick press]

I have watched this discussion with great interest as it lies at the core of my dissertation work right now.  I originally was searching for an organization that had deployed AI principles to the development of their performance management system.  Failing to find such an organization (and if you do know of one, please pass the information on to me) I have started to develop an instrument I could use that would help me measure an organization's alignment of their performance management system with AI principles, whether they intentionally meant to or not.  Below is my crude attempt to develop such an instrument.  I would love feedback and input for this instrument.  As you can see one area that I am a bit stumped by is how the principle of simultaneity would apply in a performance management system.
AI Principles as they would pertain to a Performance Management System (PMS)
 
The Constructionist Principle holds that human knowledge and organizational destiny are intricately interwoven.  To be effective as executives, leaders, and change agents, we must be adept in the art of understanding, reading, and analyzing organizations as living, human constructions.
 
Are there questions or elements within the PMS that focus on developing the employees understanding of the interrelationships of the organization as a whole?
5 = Specific elements of the PMS focus on developing the employees knowledge and understanding of the whole organization
3 = Elements of the PMS may aid in the developing the employees understanding of the organization as a whole
0 = Nothing exists within the PMS to address this area
 
Since organizations are living human constructions, inquiry and change cannot be separated – they occur simultaneously.  This is the Principle of Simultaneity.  The things that we think and talk about, discover and learn together, and that informs our dialogue and inspires our images of the future, are implicit in the very first questions we ask.  Those questions set the stage for what we “find”, and what we “discover” (the data) becomes the linguistic material, the stories out of which the future is conceived, conversed about, and constructed.
 
 ?
 
Human organizations are a lot more like an open book than a machine.  Pasts, presents, or futures are endless sources of learning, inspiration, or interpretation; much like the endless interpretive possibilities in a good piece of poetry or literature.  This is the essence of Ai’s Poetic Principle.  
 
Are there elements of the PMS that seek to understand how the employee has used prior experiences and knowledge to gain further understanding of the organization that would lead to positive change within the organization?
5 = Specific elements of the PMS seeks to understand how the employee has used experiences of prior success to create positive change and/or new levels of excellence
3 = The PMS seeks only a listing of the prior year’s accomplishments
0 = The PMS primary focus is a comparison of performance against goals
 
The Anticipatory Principle is derived from the argument that the image of the future guides what might be called the current behavior of any organism or organization.  Much like a movie projector on a screen, human systems are forever projecting ahead of themselves a horizon of expectation that brings the future powerfully into the present as a mobilizing agent.
 
Are there elements within the PMS that allows the employee to elucidate their future?
5 = The PMS allows opportunity for the employee to dream and create a vision for their future
3 = The PMS allows the employee’s input in creating goals for the next PMS cycle
0 = Employee development is focused only on eliminating perceived gaps in employee performance
 
The Positive Principle grows from an understanding that building and sustaining momentum for change requires large amounts of positive affect and social bonding, things like hope, excitement, inspiration, caring, camaraderie, and a sense of urgent purpose.  The more positive the questions we ask in our work, and the longer we can retain the spirit of inquiry, the more long-lasting and successful the change efforts.
 
Is the overall tone of the PMS positive?
5 = The PMS uses terms like “what gives you joy”; “what excites you”; “describe your greatest achievements”; “dream”
3 = The PMS uses neutral terms like “describe your accomplishments”; “detail your future development activities”; “list of performance objectives”
                        0 = The PMS provides numerical (or equivalent) rating of the employees performance in multiple areas
 
 
Thank you,
 
Rick Press




> From: rdavies at rtpcompany.com> To: kgergen1 at swarthmore.edu; michael.holdstock at telia.com> Subject: RE: [Ailist] Appreciative Valuations of Staff> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:51:21 -0500> CC: annelondon at aol.com; ailist at lists.business.utah.edu> > 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> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________> The Appreciative Inquiry Discussion List is hosted by the David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. Jack Brittain is the list administrator. For subscription information, go to:> http://mailman.business.utah.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/ailist
_________________________________________________________________
Make i'm yours.  Create a custom banner to support your cause.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Contribute/Default.aspx?source=TXT_TAGHM_MSN_Make_IM_Yours