Archives

By that I mean those areas that add up to his or her total required contribution to the company and the skills required to achieve it. There seems little point in reviewing someone's performance against a standard list of qualities that bear little resemblance to the job they do.

If a jobholder is performing well, this is a statement about how well they are managed. Equally, if someone is under-performing this is also a measure of the way they are managed.

To box or not to box, that is the question. If you are spending large proportions of your time defending a boxed rating system then I think it is important to ask yourself whether it is really worth it. The most emotive aspects we ever have to deal with are those around the grading system. So if you have a choice over whether to box or not - my advice is not.

Ongoing appraisal is what management is all about. It brings together every management skill you ever need. How does your scheme measure up?

We have designed and introduced many company appraisal schemes and we provide training and consultancy in all the skills needed to effectively manage the performance of your staff.

There aren't many companies where this is true. Unfortunately the opposite is more often the case.

"I dread appraisal time in our organisation. I'm appraised against criteria that don't relate to my job at all. My manager does the five minute compulsory unfreezing chat and then proceeds to go through in detail my faults. It takes me a couple of months to get back on form again."

Having an appraisal system in place does not guarantee performance improvement. So how does yours line up against these seven fundamental factors for success?

I have seen companies attempt to 'bolt on' an appraisal system that is only suitable for a large, formalised organisation. One of the simplest and most effective appraisal forms introduced into a company asked only four questions:-

What are your goals? How well did you do? What skills would help you develop further? What actions shall we commit to?

If a part of the appraisal scheme is to review performance against a manager's ability to discipline (as I witnessed recently) then there is a belief that discipline will be necessary in this organisation. On what beliefs is your appraisal scheme built?

I For a jobholder to accept feedback from his manager and vice-versa, rapport has to be there. Without it - forget the whole process. With rapport, the appraisal will find its own style and form.

And you measure to what extent this has been achieved. This is what management is all about. 'What you measure is what you get'. Do you get what you really want?