Was there a waste of money and resources? Was Human Resources part of the problem or was their input just ignored, in favor of pressure to get the bodies hired? Human Resource Professionals should be part of the strategic process. Yet, how often do we bring substance, structure, and value to the process?

Is your organization:

…finding that Human Resources is not included when strategic business plans are developed?

Human Resource Professionals can enhance their image and contribution by taking time to integrate simple processes that can provide senior management with valuable data and potential impacts on decisions that might be made.

…finding it doesn’t have sufficient qualified people to carry out specific business objectives?

Too few organizations take the time to define qualifications for people let alone linking qualifications to business objectives. Taking time to define outcome-based technical competencies and behavioral competencies can pay off in clarity when selecting and developing talent to meet business objectives.

…concerned about having more employees on the payroll than can be fully explained or justified?

One study indicated that there is a significant difference in the level of productivity between people. For instance, the study showed that in the category of unskilled and semi-skilled workers the difference in productivity between the high producers and low producers was three (3) times the productivity. High producers were twice as productive as average producers. What if you could reduce headcount by half and get more productivity?

…constantly running to stay in place and working at full throttle just to replace people who are transferred, retire, or otherwise leave the organization?

Sometimes it is a challenge to know when team members might be transferred, retire, or otherwise leave the organization. Yet, there are often ways to project when talent may leave. Obviously, an HRIS can be valuable for forecasting potential retirements. Succession planning can help forecast transfers and promotions as well as what needs to be done to maintain a pipeline of replacement talent.

What can you do?

How about gathering concrete demographic data about the organization’s work force?

How about succession planning, along with assessing and developing talent in the pipeline?

How about establishing competency and behavioral-based criteria for success in each position?

How about HR Strategic Planning with forecasts for short, mid, and long-term staffing needs?

Over the years job descriptions have been used and abused to accomplish a number of functions. Everything from hiring and performance reviews, clarifying expectations and career planning, to establishing qualifications, and physical requirements to meet State and Federal laws.

While some companies have totally abandoned job descriptions, others still do detailed multi-paged documents that blue-print the “DNA” of each employee’s duties and qualifications. New directions in management thinking point to a move from duty oriented job descriptions to role and competency oriented descriptions.

Duty oriented descriptions are often perceived by employers and employees alike, as structures that restrain the scope and flexibility of a position, and usually become obsolete quickly, even if you use the catch all statement, “other duties as required.”

Role and competency descriptions describe the position in a wider perspective, focusing on broad based abilities and outcomes. The role and competency model doesn’t become outdated as quickly and provides both supervisor and employee clarity on the what, how, and even why of the position. In addition, they are easier to alter as the technologies, strategies, or customer’s needs change.

When defining the “roles” of a position don’t just describe what a person is to do, include the why (the expected outcome), and if necessary the how. For instance, clarify the customer’s complaint, determine the cause of the problem, select and explain the best solution in order to solve the problem, expedite correction or adjustment, then follow-up to ensure resolution.

One way to begin creating role and competency description statements is to cluster related skills. For instance, a Customer Service competency could include; anticipate customer needs, deliver on commitments, show care and concern, and help customers evaluate needs.

To convert these Customer Service skills to behavioral statements for your descriptions, you might say “deliver on commitments or service in order to meet or exceed customer expectations,” or “show care and concern in order to demonstrate customer importance and value.”

The value of utilizing the role and competency model is that these behaviors seldom change, even as the means of executing them evolve with technology or company strategy. In addition, if an employee has an objective standard to measure his or her performance against, they will then know whether or not they are meeting the standard.

For Human Resources the challenge is to get off the non-stop merry-go-round of creating and revising descriptions. Utilize technology. One of the most exciting innovations is the advent of software programs that help create role and competency job descriptions, plus providing integrated:

• Structured Interviews for selection and hiring
• Performance expectations for position specific performance plans
• Experience ideas for employee development
• 360 assessment and feedback along with other outcomes

Changing the focus and application of job descriptions is yet another transformation that way that Human Resources can become more aligned with the needs and objectives of its organization. Making it easy, allows for adding value to the organization.

Where Herzberg identified a number of motivators and demotivators, determining which are important to specific individuals has not necessarily been emphasized as an action leaders should be taking.

If we begin to understand that organizations cannot motivate employees; instead, they can create a work environment where potential demotivators are minimized and where individual motivation can flourish. Everyone has a different set of motivational factors; but if they find the right environment they will create their own motivation.

Some organizations attempt to apply “motivational programs” to boost employee morale. Many times HR professionals are asked create programs that will “motivate” people. Companies that implement these types of programs usually get meager results within the short term. Why? “Carrot and stick” extrinsic approaches miss the heart of true motivation, the individual’s needs. Over the long term, these superficial actions have a negative effect, as people’s apathy and cynicism grows.

On the other hand, organizations that really care about employee motivation have ways of helping managers create an environment where individual’s fit and their objectives and values are in alignment.

Motivational Factors

Motivational factors change over the course of time, and depend on circumstances that an individual may be experiencing at the time, whether it be personal life or career. That can be easily demonstrated when, on one day a person believes they have a great job and future, and the next day they are unemployed.

It is also key to understand that not all people are motivated by a single factor; instead they are motivated by a series of factors. It is very important for managers to understand that different factors motivate different people.

When people are asked what factors motivate them in their work, we generally receive answers, such as:
The Organization for which they work
The Work Environment
Their Boss
Role – the work itself
Personal Achievement
Recognition
Money
Status
Their Peers and Co-workers
The Work Life Balance

How important are each of these factors? One way to gain understanding is to ask the individual to weigh each factor for importance.

Let’s look at what motivates a fictitious employee, Bob:

Bob’s Motivation = Salary + His boss + Role + Recognition + Work Environment.

Each factor also bears a different weight in Bob’s motivation formula:

Bob’s motivation is equal to:

(20%) Salary
+ (25%) His Boss
+ (35%) Role – the work he does
+ (10%) Recognition
+ (10%) Work Environment
= (100%) Bob’s Motivation

Constant Change

Motivation changes depend on the individual's personal life and career phase (as well as many other circumstances and values).

In Bob’s case, having a role in the organization that is rewarding and a good relationship with his boss and having that boss care enough to coach and promote his career is a primary motivation.

The motivation factors might change when he looks to apply for a loan to buy a house, when salary can become a more relevant motivational factor.

If Bob invents a product that gets patented and makes the company a lot of money then recognition might become a key factor in determining his motivation to feel valued.

Multifaceted motivational theory gives us an insight as to how motivational factors can interact and vary, depending on the person we are leading and their needs at that moment in time.

Moral: Understanding people's motivations is a key competency to being an effective leader or manager. If we take time to understand the motivation factors, it will be easier to create a work atmosphere where motivation flourishes. Don’t just ask what motivates those you work with, ask them to prioritize and assign a weight to each item, maybe even ask why each item motivates him or her.

Within a short period of time, the argument began over whether the two should be linked and, if so, to what extent. One facet of that ongoing debate is whether the size of pay increase differences make a difference and whether increasing pay for good performance is a motivator for even better work the next year.

The questions become 1) is pay a motivator? and 2) should performance appraisals and salary increases be are forever linked, or that should they be totally remote from each other?

In reality, given the difficulty in measuring intangible performance contributions to a company, pay for performance is difficult and there is little evidence that pay motivates individuals to higher levels of performance.

Motivation

Herzberg’s motivation theory focused on two factors, Motivation and Hygiene. Hygiene factors such as pay if perceived as unacceptable lead to job dissatisfaction, if perceived as acceptable lead only to a state of no dissatisfaction. Hence, a large raise may result in a temporary euphoria, but would not lead to job satisfaction.

Motivation factors are present in the job itself. They include such things as opportunity for recognition, achievement, and growth. Hence, a leader that recognizes employee efforts and helps employees achieve and grow can help improve satisfaction, as long as pay is perceived as fair.

Thus, regularly spending time with employees focusing on development and achievement adds value.

Performance discussions and salary reviews should be done in separate meetings at different times of the year. In addition, performance discussions should be a combination of specific examples of past performance and include a forward-focus, with the ultimate goal to increase future productivity.

Separation

Current human resources thinking holds that it's probably best for companies to separate performance appraisals from salary reviews – at least hold them at different times of the year – and to use the appraisal discussion as a way of helping employees grow both as persons and as corporate contributors. Hence, it should be much more than a report card of past performance.

Though it should be acknowledged that the compensation element will always be present, to some extent, in performance appraisals, they are two separate and distinct issues, and if you do both together, all a lot of people will hear is the money.
If the employee has expectations and if the merit increase is not commensurate with those expectations, then you have a disgruntled employee.

Expectation-based

Pay and performance feedback are separate issues. Performance is based on expectations, while compensation is typically based on the state of the economy, the economic health of the business, and the employee's level of contribution to the company.

Let’s start with the performance development part of the process. Organizations should have a performance discussion system in place to use on a consistent basis throughout the year to assess employees' progress toward achieving specific corporate goals and performance expectations.

Performance Development has two purposes – to appraise past performance and assess future potential. What are the employee's promotional opportunities, what skills need to be developed, and what is necessary to help the employee?

Most managers forget that part. After all, not everybody is going to be president, but does the employee need training, mentoring, counseling, or some other kind of assistance to meet his/her goals? Showing sincere interest in each employee is one area leaders can use to develop employee loyalty.

Report cards?

You're always looking forward, a report card (of past performance) is always good to have from a legal perspective for a termination, but we want to measure employees' progress. With a strong system, you can help people progress.

For example, helping an assistant manager who has aspirations to become a manager develop the skills and competencies he/she needs to achieve his/her goal.

A performance discussion is intended to set expectations and/or reiterate them. It's a time to review a job's duties and responsibilities, and review the goals of the corporation and the individual.

As a company, the only way we can reach our goals is to help employees reach their goals. To do that, we need to understand their goals. What do we as a company need to do to meet your goals? And, that's not just professional goals, but their personal goals. We need to talk about personal goals.

Communications tool

If nothing else, performance discussions open the lines of communication between employees and supervisors and help them set mutually agreed upon goals.

Having face to face discussions has become particularly important in an age when much corporate communication is done by cryptic voice or e-mail messages. Heavy use of technology seems to significantly limit the amount of time spent actually talking with employees.

How leaders and employees communicate is important as well. Communication should be a two-way practice, handled with supervisors who are trained in performance discussion techniques and understand it’s an ongoing process.
Appraiser training

The important part is the training you give your appraisers, because if it's not done properly, the whole thing will fall on its face.

Training is absolutely essential. You want open communication and you want feedback on a daily basis. What if the employee is just average, but thinks he/she is superior? If a supervisor gives a surprise at an appraisal discussion, the supervisor hasn't done his or her job.

Supervisors should learn how to include employees in the discussion process in such a way as to provide the average performer a way to self-identify development needs. Often, supervisors don’t have time to prepare for regular discussions, yet these discussions need to happen. The performance discussion system should provide a method for the supervisor and employee to have a meaningful discussion about how the employee has handled actual events against a set of clear expectations.

Compensation reviews

Compensation reviews are another matter. In a compensation review, the goal is to establish the employee's value to the corporation, based on their duties and responsibilities, potential, and their own financial goals.

If employees have a great performance review, they're going to expect a great compensation package, and that might be difficult. They may view themselves and their worth higher than the company does, hence dissatisfaction.

Any number of factors can come into play in compensation review, including the company's economic health and how much it can prudently afford to pay, as well as the employee's skill level, responsibilities, and longevity– not only with the company, but in their current position.

Some companies have a salary range for various positions that can take experience, seniority, and skill levels into account.

But increases are frequently based more on the economy and how the company's doing than on actual performance. Most leaders try to give larger increases to higher performing employees, and smaller increases lower performers.

Many still link performance appraisals to additions to base pay, but in other places it has been replaced by variable pay or profit sharing. They're fairly effective in improving employee performance. And, adding commissions on sales gets better performances.

Moral: Employees need to know they are cared about. Employees need to be praised and recognized for quality work. Have a regular forum for discussions with their supervisors, along with coaching on how to develop skills and competencies. Compensation obviously needs to be at least fair for the work being done.

Today it seems that management is more focused on efficiency than on effectiveness. Effectiveness refers to doing the right things. Efficiency refers to doing things right. Peter Drucker taught that efficiency must be built on a foundation of effectiveness. When talent and effort are applied to the wrong things, the results are useless.

For instance, it is efficient to fill out a performance appraisal form at the end of the year. It is effective to meet with employees regularly throughout the year. Yet, talking with one senior manager about how much time he spent with his employees, his immediate response was, “Spend time with my employees? I don’t have time to spend with my employees!”

So if a leader doesn’t spend time with their employees, are they a leader? Why do they need to spend time growing and developing their employees? To enhance performance? To maintain focus? To build relationships and retain talent?

Why do so many managers resist regular performance discussions with their employees? The typical answer is a lack of time. A psychologist once told me that the first reason a patient gives is usually not true. More likely than not the resistance falls into one of four categories, 1) fear of causing morale problems, 2) fear of confrontation and having to defend a position, 3) not having observed anything of substance to talk about, or 4) not knowing how to effectively go about it.

There is a need to shift the paradigm managers and organizations have for leaders. The traditional focus on objectives and results is only part of the story. Yet because objectives are often changed throughout a given period of time, there needs to be some standard that is consistent over the same time period.

Which leads to Leadership by Expectations.

The Process

The process is simple.
1. Each position needs to have both performance objectives and behavioral based performance expectations. Performance expectations that define how the employee is to go about fulfilling their tasks and objectives can be the standard.

Picture having a set of five or six clearly defined and measurable competencies such as: attention to detail, integrity, problem solving, responsiveness, and adaptability that remain constant throughout a given year, while assignments change.

What does this give you? The ability to measure not only the RESULTS of performance but also the ACTIONS the employee takes to accomplish the assignment. What are you now able to measure? Not only are they doing right things, but are they doing the things right? In other words are they being both effective and efficient?
Both are important.

2. The key to Leadership by Expectations is employee involvement. The leader and employees use a simple structured process to select and define the essential competencies for success and the related performance expectations. Recurring tasks and responsibilities and long-term objectives can also be included.

3. Each compensation needs a single performance expectation that is written in an outcome based format. Do something in order to get some outcome.

4. The employee is given tools to gather verifiable Action Examples of how they have demonstrated the performance expectations in pursuit of their objectives. Documenting one Action Example per week (taking 2-5 minutes) provides the basis for discussions.

5. The leader schedules regular 15-20 minute meetings with the employee. All the leader needs to do then is ask, which performance expectation do you want to talk about first? The employee then shares an example and then the leader asks the employee to rate the outcome of the example and then the actions taken to get the result.

6. As a pattern of examples begins to emerge the employee can identify personal development needs, leading to a more effective opportunity for the leader to actually act as a coach and help the employee to develop new skills.

Moral: One key to effective leadership is developing the talent and performance of employees. Leadership by Expectations is designed to make the process both effective and efficient.

Albert Einstein once said: “insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.”

Research on performance feedback indicates that it works about one third of the time, while about one third of the time it makes things worse, and about one third of the time it has no effect.

There are a number of beliefs about performance feedback that are not supported by research, such as "feedback leads to improved performance" and "immediate feedback is more effective than delayed feedback.

However, here is what is supported by research:

1) Feedback on process and successful results improves performance.

2) Feedback appears to have more effect on cognitive than physical tasks.

3) Feedback that is threatening to self-esteem has negative effects.

4) Feedback has a stronger effect on memory than rule-following tasks: it is more powerful in improving recognition and memory recall than application of procedures, principles, or problem solving.

5) Immediate feedback appears to be beneficial for simple or neutral tasks. For complex tasks it appears that delayed feedback is better.

6) Prepare the performer before training in terms of performance expectations on the job, (what is expected and why).

7) Common sense is not a good guide to performance improvement. A data-driven approach is better.

We should stop confusing Actions and Results. Most feedback systems combine both the Actions taken, (what we do), and Results (what we leave behind). Positive approaches treat both as important, linked, and different.

Think about it. You know of stories where a manager gets results, but leaves a wake of bodies or walking wounded. Results, getting the result versus Actions, creating a wake of walking wounded, both need to be considered. Ideally we want positive results without the negative actions.

While human resources often blurs the relationship of Actions and Results, this should change. We blur these by using Likert rating scales that force combining both Actions and Results into one rating.

Performance discussions should address Actions and Results separately. In addition real success will come from adding a focus on the expected outcomes and being value added. Not even the best-designed and slick training program will work if it has the wrong target.

Once a performance problem is defined, then select the best ways and means (Actions) to meet the needs, these should be used to close the gaps in achieving the desired outcomes (Results). Then describe why those results are important.

Moral: Performance improvement is vital and as Human Resource professionals we can add value. Don't squander people's time and the organization's money on solutions that don't solve the real problems. Another new form is not going to cut it.

With duplicate departments in two different cities and one manager retiring, both departments were consolidated under Russ’s responsibility. Yet, the new group resented Russ and hindered his original department’s effort.

What to do? In our rapidly moving world, new managers are expected to hit the ground running.

With a little investment of time, Human Resources can significantly reduce the amount of time it takes subordinates to overcome issues and concerns about new managers in any department. This process was originally pioneered at General Electric.

THE PROCESS – Phase I

First, the new manager must agree to participate in the process. The facilitator explains how the process will work, the expected benefits, and the new manager's role in the process.

Step 1: The new manager is presented with four questions for his/her consideration:

1. What do I know about the team?
2. What don’t I know about the team?
3. How do I like to operate?
4. What concerns do I have?

Step 2: To begin the meeting, the new manager should lead off by stating his/her endorsement for the process. The manager then leaves the facilitator and the staff to begin the process.

Step 3: The facilitator reviews the steps of the process and establishes a rule that any and all comments and contributions made in the meeting are to remain anonymous.

Step 4: The facilitator then provides the staff with a list of six questions that they will discuss as a group. These are taped to the wall on six separate sheets of flipchart paper.

1. What do we know about him/her already?
2. What don’t we know but would like to know?
3. What concerns do we have about his/her coming?
4. What should he/she know about us?
5. What problem will he/she be facing?
6. What things are going well in the organization?

Step 5: Starting with the first question the facilitator begins gathering contributions from each staff member. (As the group proceeds through the questions, it is okay to go back and add additional contributions). Once all questions have been addressed, the facilitator can ask for a final review of all charts by the group to determine if additional input is appropriate.

Step 6: The facilitator takes the data and reviews it line by line with the new manager for the purpose of assuring clear understanding of the group's thoughts.

Step 7: In a second group meeting, the new manager, his/her staff and the facilitator, discuss the data from the first meeting. The new manager now needs to address the questions and concerns while encouraging an open dialogue. Emphasis is now on openness, candor, and constructive team building.

Step 8: Have the data from the charts typed for future review.

Phase II: Optional follow-up (usually scheduled six months following Phase I)

Step 1: Utilize the general sequence in Phase I.

Step 2: To abbreviate the process use the following questions:

1. What is ____________ doing now that we would like him/her to continue doing?

2. What should ___________ stop doing?

3. What is ______________ not doing that he/she should start doing, or doing more of?

Moral: A better understanding by the new manager of issues and concerns of the existing staff can quickly jump-start the new leaders effectiveness. In addition, the existing staff will understand where the new manager is coming from and where he/she wants to go.

Two weeks ago as she and her boss had passed in the hall, he mentioned the need to meet for her annual performance review. A week later he remembered that they needed to meet, and brought up the subject again.

The day came, and time was not available to meet. Just before lunch, Susan got a phone call from her son’s school, he had fallen and needed medical attention. She checked out and went to care for her son. That afternoon, a report deadline was missed.

Can you guess what the topic of her performance review the next Monday morning was?

Déjà vu? If you have had, or given, a performance review in your career, you probably have stories to tell. Why are performance reviews so disliked by managers and employees alike?

Performance appraisals are administered by human beings, most of whom are not experts in giving and receiving feedback. Here are some of the basic reasons the traditional approach to the performance appraisal is such a hot potato:

1. The fundamental premise. Like it or not, the traditional performance appraisal systems most companies use are based on the work of behavioral scientists during the first half of this century, conducting tests on rats, dogs, and pigeons. Unlike these animals, people think, develop their own logic, have their own views of life, and in reality, there is no comparison.

2. One size fits all. Organizations that use one or two forms of pre established performance criteria, are missing the boat. Fundamentally, the skills people use in the myriad of jobs they perform are different. When a company attempts to force this fit, the firm looses credibility with the manager and the employee.

3. The rating system. Inaccurate performance ratings are often given in order to maintain a positive work group climate, or to avoid negative outcomes for their employees. An audit of one Fortune 500 company demonstrated that over 80% of the reviews rated the employees as above average performers. Could the company have that many high performers?

    In addition, traditional rating scales are one dimensional. Often called "Likert Scales," these rating scales are used to lump the results team members get and the actions they take getting those results. Why is it important to break ratings down into these two categories? Have you ever seen a manager who could get the product out the door, but was so abusive that there was a lot of walking wounded, resulting in high turnover, poor morale, or some other consequence? Are those not two dimensions of performance?

4. Supervisor as Judge and Jury. We ask our managers and supervisors to act as judge and jury. What’s wrong with that? People hate to be judged. How often have you seen people actually take constructive criticism and make a significant change in their behavior? Resistance is natural, compliance is a facade, subjectivity, is the issue.

    The second issue with the supervisor being judge and jury is that ratings are often inflated to prevent morale problems and relationship issues. If the result is inaccurate, why continue to do it?

5. They are a waste of time. Most managers, when forced to complete performance appraisals, will say, done for the year - another waste of time. Since the review was probably inaccurate, took a lot of time to develop, deliver, and caused a lot of stress, why bother?

Moral: A paradigm shift is required in the approach to performance management. Providing a new methodology, some simple tools, and training, are essential.

The teacher explained her reasons, the principal stood by the teacher, and the issue ended up in court. The teacher told of her expertise, her masters degree in art, and how pictures need balance. The judge then asked Sally why she was upset about the seagull in the picture. Sally's response, "I don't see it there."

People are a lot like Sally. As they grow up, their experiences end up on a picture they have of themselves and of the world. When a manager comes along and gives feedback, one of two things happens. The employee runs the feedback through a filter and either thinks that it matches their painting and accepts it, or that doesn't match the painting and responds, "I don't see it there."

You can probably guess that the information that is received positively is primarily positive feedback. The constructive, (i.e. negative feedback) is often rejected. The employee usually smiles, thanks the manager, and walks off grumbling about how their boss is out of touch with reality.

Most people don't think in the context of pure logic, they think in the context of their experiences, and their view of the world. Yet, the traditional view of management is that people care about learning the truth, people are capable of seeing things unemotionally, they will change their minds when you show them the facts, and that they are reasonable and will admit you are right and that they are wrong.

The reality is that most people care more about proving they are right, they react emotionally and defend their position. They will interpret information to support their beliefs and reject information that doesn't. Bottom-line, people prefer to see the world their way.

What does this teach us as coaches, leaders, and managers? We need a different approach to giving feedback, one that demonstrates openness to the views of employees, yet injects the rigors of objectivity and verifiability.

Utopia? Maybe, yet new research supports the effectiveness of such an approach.

What does this new approach look like? First, the supervisor and the team member(s) need to objectively define the results that are expected. This includes short and long term objectives and how the company's values are to be demonstrated on the job.

Coaches should GUIDE team members. GUIDE stands for:

Gather examples
  Understand results and actions
    Identify development needs
      Develop plans and goals
        Exercise the competency

The primary responsibility for Gathering examples belongs to the team member(s). These are verifiable examples of the actions taken to achieve the pre-established goals. Understanding results and actions is a joint effort between the team member and the supervisor. The supervisor truly becomes a coach in a low stress interactive discussion where the team member shares the examples. The coach asks questions and guides the rating of both the results and the actions taken to achieve the results.

As examples are shared, development needs become apparent to the team member and the coach that leads to Identifying Development Needs and Developing Plans and Goals. Once new goals are established, the team member Exercises the Competency such as an athlete would in practice. The team member would then Gather New Examples, thus repeating the process and developing the new skill.

Moral: Using Sally's story, the coach that gains the team member's view of reality and works with that reality, will gain buy-in to improvements that otherwise would not have been possible.

Issues

Issue 1 – Lack of congruence between company goals, culture and the 360 instrument that is used. How the behaviors for each competency is phrased may or may not support the culture or goals of the organization.

To take that concept a step further, let’s say that for a specific competency there are six behaviors and half of the behaviors were supportive of a culture or the company’s objectives, and the other half were not. If a subject received fair feedback on those that were supportive and negative feedback on those that were not, the subject would get an overall negative result on the competency, but not know why.

Issue 2 – Lack of specific job relatedness to the position performed. Many off-the-shelf instruments are designed to measure a universe of competencies versus assessing only a few specific essential competencies.

The challenge that the subject now faces is that few people can do everything well, so they get some negative feedback on a couple of competencies. Because there has been no validation on which competencies are important for success the subject begins to focus on developing his or her skills in those areas, and the competencies may not even be important to success in their job.

Issue 3 – Time and cost can also be an issue. Many off-the-shelf 360 tools are designed to measure a universe of competencies. Raters must spend time rating 200 or more behaviors that require an hour or more to effectively rate.

For example, if a Subject, Boss, five Peers, and five Subordinates, participate in completing an instrument, 12 people are involved in spending an hour each of company time, hence an investment of 12 hours. Maybe not a big deal but multiply that by 10’s or 100’ more repetitions on other individuals and now there are 100’s and 1000’s of hours of time invested.

Then there is the feedback and development plan. If a subject selects a number of competencies to develop and money is spent in training and coaching when the competencies are not important to success, more time and money is wasted.

Hence for Human Resource systems to be considered useful the return needs to be greater than the investment.

Lack of an on going development, support, and coaching process that focuses on and reinforces the key competencies, results in all this effort being tossed aside. A waste of time, money, and often having a negative impact on the subject’s morale and relationship with those that provided the feedback.

Possible Solutions

The culture of the company should be right for 360 assessment. Implementing 360 feedback in the wrong culture would do more harm than good.

360 feedback should be limited to baseline and maybe milestone assessment for developmental purposes only.

Involve job experts in the design of the instruments, so the competencies measured are relevant and the importance of specific behaviors is understood and agreed on.

Train people in giving and receiving feedback. Provide a support structure.

Train managers to be coaches, providing ideas and opportunities for developing competencies.

Make the instruments short 30 to 50 items max. Use technology to deliver and complete instruments electronically.

Have instruments delivered to a third party for processing in order to protect the anonymity of the raters.

Moral: Is there such thing as too much of a good thing? When it comes to 360 assessment there can be. 360 assessment can deliver a positive return on investment, you just need to implement thoughtfully and continuously monitor the results.