Hmmm, You look Like a 4.87 to me...

Again, the issue of performance review ratings rears its head...

I always find this topic fascinating; in reality (my opinion), there are only three performance results:

(a) Doesn't meet expectations,
(b) Meets expectations, or
(c) Exceeds expectations.

All else (in my opinion) are provided for comfort and conflict mitigation, not accuracy. More rating choices enables poor performance management, in my mind.

I know this next comment isn't strictly about "ratings,", but it's still part of my response: Help managers learn how to manage performance first; reviews, then, merely memorialize performance conversations. They are the END of the process, not the beginning.

The bigger issue is that most managers are really poor at setting and managing to real, objective expectations. Hence the desire to always want "more" rating categories.

"Pretty good" versus "Real good."

"Good," but not "great."

"Almost satisfactory" versus "Really bad."

Most of my clients have 3-point scales (above). Two still have 5 points. I've worked with and for companies that had 10-point scales, and one -- no kidding -- had a 100 point scale.

The ratings aren't the key, so don't spend an inordinate amount of time here. Performance management, conversations, dialog, and setting expectations ARE keys, so there's the real focus.

Performance MANAGEMENT is a relatively simple process. We (globally management) complicate it (perhaps somewhat necessarily) with performance REVIEWS, so minimize those complications as much as possible. Simple is always better.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Meetings, Cell Phones, and Managers

Meetings, Cell Phones and Managers...

They go together like bacon and eggs... Laurel and Hardy... Smith & Wesson... Dumb and Dumber...

It's true. As we live and breathe, managers go to meetings. Some incessantly; so often that meeting attendance begins to feel like an end itself -- that their actual job is to attend meetings.

And cell phones. Are we really so important that we cannot go an hour -- one single, lonely hour -- without checking emails, texting, or my favorite, "Excuse me, I've got to take this..." cell call?? Can we not make an entire meeting without casting those sometimes-furtive glances toward that 2-inch screen??

In a word, no.

The short answer is probably NO ONE will die without their phone for an hour (contrary to what some likely feel). I do, however, feel this issue brings a murky problem into specific relief...

It's about value, not time or even cell phones/blackberry's.

So many meetings are mundane, repetitive and unnecessary, that participants feel their attendance is either unwarranted or merely perfunctory. Hence the texting, blackberry emails, and "excuse me, this is important" cell calls.

In other words, in my view, cell phones, et al, during meetings are symptomatic, not causal.

Reduce the number of meetings by 2/3, drive them with action, require attendance only from action-substantive people, and THEN make 'em turn off the damn phones.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com