>> MIM Speaks
NEW DIRECTION FOR EVALUATION
MAY 7, 2000 -
THE STAR
It is extremely difficult to design an effective performance
measurement system that is able to cover a wide spectrum of
the diversified business activities of a very large complex
company (VLCC, to borrow a shipping acronym) that is agreeable
to the employer and employees.
There are, however, many Organizations in different industries
that use one fixed set of performance measurement criteria and
attempt to measure their employees across the board. Most of
these systems place heavy emphasis on the behaviour of the
employee.
This approach ultimately, bogs the important question: can a
system with one fixed set of performance measurement criteria
be able to adequately evaluate the performance of employees
working in different business activities? The answer seems to
be a clear "no."
The debate on what is a 'most suitable system of performance
evaluation to measure employees' performance on an annual
basis has not subsided. Indeed, it is very much alive, thanks
to the recent disquiet among civil servants.
When the SSB was launched some years ago, it was hoped that
this new system of performance measurement would be sufficient
to provide the objectivity in evaluation and cover the wide
spectrum of the diversified services in the public sector. But
that was not to be.
Once the system was crystallised and applied, its many
subjective shortcomings were exposed.
Just why is this happening in VLCCs in the private and public
sectors when planners who had the best intentions had often
failed to come out with a performance measurement system that
could take care of measuring performance correctly in their
organisations?
There are probably three reason's why one fixed set of
performance measurement criteria system when used in a VLCC
would fail.
The first is that when such a system is introduced, there is
inadequate training for the appraiser and appraisee. Also,
insufficient depth is given in the training to, explain the
rationale behind the design of the system.
Most training, when it occurs, teaches the "how" and not
enough emphasis is given to the "why" of the system.
Above all, in a system that is capable of being used with
bias, it is important to clarify to appraisers that
objectivity and organisational interests should supersede
their personal interests at all times.
The second reason is that employees' expectations have changed
very rapidly over the last ten years - from learning to behave
according to a standard established by the organisation, to
realising that competence is more important now in delivering
the results of the job.
Thus, a behavioural measurement system which is modelled on
stability and seeks to promote uniformity (which usually is
the case in organisations of such size and structure) is
woefully slow in handling this shift in thinking and
expectations.
The third reason is that one cannot, realistically expect the
one fixed set of performance measurement criteria format to be
able to cope with the great diversity of service delivery
covering the vast spectrum in a VLCC.
It is difficult to imagine how such a system is going to be
able to evaluate fairly and accurately people acting out
different roles and performing different types of work.
This one-pill-cure-all approach is oversimplistic and will do
a lot of damage to employees' morale and productivity.
In short such a system does not build employee confidence and
generate performance, but rather, short- circuits performance
and productivity.
Perhaps the reason why VLCCs continue to pursue this slippery
path is that the people who are in charge of this area of
management plan their performance measurement system from the
angle of centralisation, standardisation, and control.
This is done with the assumption that the structure of the
organisation is sacrosanct and that the same behaviour of
employees is applicable, regardless of type of work and
industry.
In reality, different behaviours and competencies are required
for different types of work, and therefore, the behaviours and
competencies that are critical to delivering results in each
operational area should be evaluated differently.
This strategy recognises the need for differentiation in
performance evaluation and challenges the organisation to
think about hiring people with the right competency and
behaviour capacity to deliver the desired results.
But quite importantly, too, this strategy considers that the
performance structure of the different parts of the VLCC can
be differentiated from the administrative structure of the
organisation.
Thus, the performance evaluation system is dovetailed to suit
the needs of each business in the VLCC.
What this means is that a trading entity will have a set of
performance measurement criteria that is different from one
for a hospitality business.
One of the greatest dangers of changing the employee
performance evaluation system is to do so without having a
clear understanding of desired results before you decide on
the content.
There is now a pressing need for organisations to take a
balanced approach when it comes to evaluating the employee's
performance.
Gone are the days when the evaluation is solely focused on
employee behaviour - an employee who knows how to behave may
not have the technical skills to perform well.
The preferred model takes into account a balance between
competency and behaviour in the evaluation design.
Hence, the competency measurement approach is often structured
on key result areas and key result factors which by themselves
have rather well defined performance indicators. This removes
the appraiser's subjectivity and replaces it with objectivity.
Performance evaluation, apart from the probationer's
evaluation for confirmation, has an important purpose to the
employee and the organisation.
This is a tool designed to measure how employees perform based
on the aligned expectations of the organisation.
Usually, a performance evaluation system is a feedback
mechanism that informs management how well its employees have
done.
Once the performance evaluation system is aligned to the
organisation's direction and goals, the organisation can now
measure whether the cumulative results based on its employees'
performance are moving the organisation forward in achieving
its goals.
|