1. Performance Management

2. DEVELOPED BY JCM CONSULTING INC. © Clyde Johnson 1986, 89, 93, 94, 97, 98, 2005 www.jcmconsulting.com

4. Problem Developing Your Own Program?  Managers would rather do nothing  They may want a system as close to nothing as they can find  Give managers what they need and should have, not what they think they want  Designers may list objectivity at the bottom of the wish list  You should not compare features of other programs if the paradigm does not make sense

5.  TO LET EMPLOYEES KNOW WHERE THEY STAND  TO BASE PERSONNEL DECISIONS ON PERFORMANCE CRITERIA  TO STRENGTHEN THE ORGANIZATION'S LEGAL POSITION  TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE Why Evaluate Performance....

6.  INADEQUATELY DEFINED STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE  OVEREMPHASIS ON VERY RECENT OR DISTANT PERIODS OF PERFORMANCE  RELIANCE ON GUT FEELING  NO TIME OR FORMAT FOR DISCUSSION BETWEEN EMPLOYEE & SUPERVISOR  LACK OF FOLLOW-UP PLAN COMMON ERRORS....

7. Choose Evaluation Paradigm  Fluff  Forced Ranking  Objective Bars  Compromised Bars

8. Fluff  Essay  No real standards  Same words for all jobs with same factor  Poor or No weighting concept  Some but not all 360 Evaluations  Peer Group evaluation

9. Irrelevant Objectives  Employee determines objectives  May related to a completely different job  May be counterproductive  Objectives should be related to performance factors (components)

10. Forced Ranking  Who do you want in the life boat  Fire the bottom 10%  Major Lawsuits  Ford  Conoco  Microsoft

11. B A R S  Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales  Define levels of performance for each factor  Should describe performance for each level  Ideally should be five levels  Could be different verbiage for each job  Can change wording to meet current needs without effecting past records

12. Compromised Bars  Compromised BARS system  The description for factors same for all jobs  Can rate between factor levels with no description of the level of performance.  Compare rating to other employees  Objectives separate from performance factors  Weighting by elimination  Does not include all job performance factors  Why not use just one factor?

13. Constructive Dismissal  Keep secret notes  Negative actions are recorded  All comments should be viewed by the employee  At the time of the incident  At evaluation time

14. Objective Vs Subjective  Standards  Employee Involvement  Known to new employees  Relative Weighting  Employee Input  Open System  Employee Access  Significant Incident  Progress of Specific Goals & Objectives  Measure Performance Data  Tie actual performance data to performance standards

15.  ESSAY  PEER RANKING OR PEER EVALUATION  360 DEGREE EVALUATIONS  MULTIPLE EVALUATORS  TRAIT (BEHAVIORS)  QUANTIFIED FACTORS  PRE-DEFINED STANDARDS (BARS)  GOALS/OBJECTIVE SETTING  RELATIVE WEIGHTING  RANKING EVALUATION TECHNIQUES..

16. HOW SHOULD IT WORK...  MULTIPLE EVALUATION TECHNIQUES  EMPLOYEE/SUPERVISORY OWNERSHIP  SETTING THE PARAMETERS  EVALUATION  JOB RELATED  FACTORS ARE WEIGHTED FOR EACH JOB CATEGORY  STANDARDS ARE TAILORED FOR EACH JOB CATEGORY  ONGOING PROCESS

17. WHO SHOULD EVALUATE...  PRINCIPALS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS  IMMEDIATE SUPERVISORS  EMPLOYEE SELF-EVALUATION  MULTIPLE EVALUATORS  GROUP MEETING  AVERAGING

18. HOW OFTEN.....  AT LEAST ANNUALLY  AT THE END OF THE FIRST 90 DAY PERIOD  SUPPLEMENTED WITH OPTIONAL ACTIONS TO MAKE THE PROCESS ONGOING  SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS  GOALS/OBJECTIVES  QUANTITY DATA

19. FAIRNESS AND EQUITY...  FACTORS SHOULD BE WEIGHTED AND STANDARDS TAILORED FOR EACH JOB CATEGORY  EMPLOYEES AND SUPERVISORS ARE INVOLVED IN:  SETTING THE PARAMETERS  EVALUATING  SUPERVISOR'S RATINGS CHECKED FOR:  CONSISTENCY  FAIRNESS  SUPERVISOR/EMPLOYEE INTERACTIONS FACILITATED  ONGOING EVALUATION PROCESS

20. LEGAL VULNERABILITIES...  JOB RELATED  EMPLOYEE SIGN-OFF OF FACTORS, WEIGHTING, AND STANDARDS  INFORMAL "LEGAL" EVALUATIONS

21. ADVANCED PROCESS... PERFORMANCE FACTORS LINKED TO S I R Significant Incident Records S P O Specific Performance Objectives/Goals Quantified Data

24. Enter Specific Performance Objectives S P O Check for rater bias Printout & Review Performance Report With Employees Enter Significant Incidents S I R Tie pay to performance Enter Quantity Data A S D Set goals and objectives S P O Evaluate Performance Create Job Categories Select and Define Standards Set Job Values Flow Chart Enter Employee Data & Map Management Relationship

25. PLANNING...  SELECT RELEVANT FACTORS  DETERMINE RELATIVE WEIGHT OF FACTORS  ESTABLISH STANDARDS  QUANTIFY FACTORS WHERE POSSIBLE  ESTABLISH LEVEL DEFINITIONS OF OTHERS

37.  LINKED TO INDIVIDUAL FACTORS  ENTER ONLINE OR MANUAL FORM  ON-SITE EVALUATION OF INCIDENT IN TERMS OF FACTORS  EMPLOYEE SIGN-OFF  EMPLOYEE RETAINS A COPY  SUMMARY IS USED IN PERIODIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION S I R SIGNIFICANT INCIDENT RECORD

39.  LINKED TO INDIVIDUAL FACTORS  FRAMEWORK FOR EMPLOYEE GOALS  ENTER ONLINE OR MANUAL FORM  DESIRED OUTCOMES DESCRIBED  USED AS PART OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS TO DETERMINE LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE  USED DURING PERFORMANCE REVIEW TO INDICATE SPECIFICALLY THE ACTION NEEDED TO REACH A HIGHER LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE FOR A SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE FACTOR S P O Specific Performance Objective

40.  A Snapshot of performance linked to individual factors  Conduct on a pre-agreed time table  Series of positive bias questions  Data entered into PEP program  Results used in the periodic evaluation of quantified factors SURVEY

46. Quantity Lit

47. SIR Lit

49. SPO Lit

55.  Overall Score  Percent of perfect  One to five  Blueprint for improvement  Success Factors  Employee needs  Notes Report

58. Page 3 top

61.  POSITIVE LENIENCY  BASED ON EXPECTATIONS  NEGATIVE LENIENCY  NOBODY IS PERFECT  CENTRAL TENDENCY  TO AVOID EXTREME POSITIONS  HORNS/HALO EFFECT  A SINGLE TRAIT AFFECTS RATER'S JUDGEMENT  WEAK TEAM MEMBERSHIP  ENDS UP WITH LOWER RATING  EFFECT OF PAST RECORD  WORK TENDS TO CARRY OVER INTO LATER PERIODS WHAT IS RATER BIAS....

64.  FRONT-END PLANNING  MULTIPLE EVALUATION TECHNIQUES  SUPERVISOR/EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT  JOB RELATED FACTORS  FACTORS, WEIGHTS, AND STANDARDS TAILORED FOR EACH JOB CLASSIFICATION  QUANTIFYING FACTORS  EMPLOYEE SIGN-OFF ON JOB PARAMETERS  COMPUTERS USED TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS  REPORTS GENERATED TO FACILITATE DECISION-MAKING SUMMARY.....

65. CALL 801-322-3700 FOR MORE INFORMATION SUCCESS...