Neuroscience shows why numbers-based HR management is obsolete. And watch the video “How Your Brain Responds to Performance Rankings”: http://youtu.be/XrnfSeMXSO0
In this file, you can ref useful information about performance appraisal rating scale such as performance appraisal rating scale methods, performance appraisal rating scale tips, performance appraisal rating scale forms, performance appraisal rating scale phrases … If you need more assistant for performance appraisal rating scale, please leave your comment at the end of file.
In almost all organizations, some leaders pave the way for their employees to do their best work, and others inadvertently make things much harder than they should be. Where do you fall on this continuum? Do you help or do you hinder? In all probability, it’s the latter. According to our research, your employees are more likely to view you as an obstacle to their effectiveness than as an enabler of it—and that holds true whether your organization is successful or stumbling.
This document summarizes research showing that good managers have a significant positive impact on business performance. A study of over 6 million data points from various industries found that replacing a poor manager with a good one can increase team productivity by 12%. Other research cited found that the quality of managers accounted for up to 30% of the variation in revenue for new video games. Additional case studies showed that companies with transformational managers experienced higher profits, lower costs, and better employee outcomes. However, the document notes that management skills are often not properly rewarded, management is seen as an extra duty rather than the main role, competency expectations can be unrealistic, and management development happens late in careers rather than being a focus from the start.
This document summarizes and promotes "The Extraordinary Leader" workshop, which teaches a strengths-based approach to leadership development. It outlines research finding dramatic performance differences between weak and strong leaders, and presents a framework to help individuals maximize their strengths to improve leadership effectiveness. The workshop uses a 360-degree feedback tool and personalized development plan to help participants build upon their top strengths.
How learning leaders can introduce crucial capabilities to their workforce for maximum success. This study also provides how Bellevue University's College of Continuing & Professional Education can assist you from our Power Skills boot camps to our Power Skills PRO (workforce assessment tool to discover where your gaps are).
Can passion be taught? Can it be fostered? The answer is yes. But perhaps more accurately, a team leader must create the right conditions for passion to emerge. Those conditions must be nurtured, not unlike a gardener creating the right conditions for his plants to flourish. Make your job easier. Get the inside scoop on the secrets of success that motivate teams to top performance. In the matrix of workplace roles and responsibilities, managers are pivotal to corporate success. Yet a manager is often the unsung hero who must adapt to demands from all sides—and do so with little or no training, and without mentorship for the role. Learn from Dan Bobinski, who draws from 20 years of consulting experience, extensive studies of best practices, and the latest in neuroscience research. You'll learn the principles and methods top managers use to develop passionate, engaged employees who are dedicated to success. You'll be able to:
— Motivate without manipulating
— Turn mistakes into a fervent drive for quality
— Equip teams to enthusiastically adapt to change
— Create environments in which people strive for excellence—and more
Today's workforce requires managers to be more than just a person in charge. Creating Passion-Driven Teams show you how to tap your team's natural motivations and achieve consistent, sustained top performance.
How Extraordinary Leaders Double ProfitJim Clemmer
We've spent years decoding leadership trends, and we've discovered a pattern that's likely to pique your interest: extraordinary leaders can double profits.
Frontline leaders are often average in their performance and development. This has negative implications for organizations, including loss of productivity, engagement, and profitability. There are two main reasons for this:
1. The selection of frontline leaders is often left more to chance than a deliberate process, relying too heavily on manager recommendations rather than validated tools like simulations, tests, and behavioral interviews.
2. Interpersonal skills are the most common reason frontline leaders fail, as developing these skills is often overlooked in leadership development.
Organizations that use validated selection tools and prioritize interpersonal skills development have stronger leadership pipelines and report their frontline leaders as more capable and confident. However, most organizations are only doing an
In this file, you can ref useful information about performance appraisal rating scale such as performance appraisal rating scale methods, performance appraisal rating scale tips, performance appraisal rating scale forms, performance appraisal rating scale phrases … If you need more assistant for performance appraisal rating scale, please leave your comment at the end of file.
In almost all organizations, some leaders pave the way for their employees to do their best work, and others inadvertently make things much harder than they should be. Where do you fall on this continuum? Do you help or do you hinder? In all probability, it’s the latter. According to our research, your employees are more likely to view you as an obstacle to their effectiveness than as an enabler of it—and that holds true whether your organization is successful or stumbling.
This document summarizes research showing that good managers have a significant positive impact on business performance. A study of over 6 million data points from various industries found that replacing a poor manager with a good one can increase team productivity by 12%. Other research cited found that the quality of managers accounted for up to 30% of the variation in revenue for new video games. Additional case studies showed that companies with transformational managers experienced higher profits, lower costs, and better employee outcomes. However, the document notes that management skills are often not properly rewarded, management is seen as an extra duty rather than the main role, competency expectations can be unrealistic, and management development happens late in careers rather than being a focus from the start.
This document summarizes and promotes "The Extraordinary Leader" workshop, which teaches a strengths-based approach to leadership development. It outlines research finding dramatic performance differences between weak and strong leaders, and presents a framework to help individuals maximize their strengths to improve leadership effectiveness. The workshop uses a 360-degree feedback tool and personalized development plan to help participants build upon their top strengths.
How learning leaders can introduce crucial capabilities to their workforce for maximum success. This study also provides how Bellevue University's College of Continuing & Professional Education can assist you from our Power Skills boot camps to our Power Skills PRO (workforce assessment tool to discover where your gaps are).
Can passion be taught? Can it be fostered? The answer is yes. But perhaps more accurately, a team leader must create the right conditions for passion to emerge. Those conditions must be nurtured, not unlike a gardener creating the right conditions for his plants to flourish. Make your job easier. Get the inside scoop on the secrets of success that motivate teams to top performance. In the matrix of workplace roles and responsibilities, managers are pivotal to corporate success. Yet a manager is often the unsung hero who must adapt to demands from all sides—and do so with little or no training, and without mentorship for the role. Learn from Dan Bobinski, who draws from 20 years of consulting experience, extensive studies of best practices, and the latest in neuroscience research. You'll learn the principles and methods top managers use to develop passionate, engaged employees who are dedicated to success. You'll be able to:
— Motivate without manipulating
— Turn mistakes into a fervent drive for quality
— Equip teams to enthusiastically adapt to change
— Create environments in which people strive for excellence—and more
Today's workforce requires managers to be more than just a person in charge. Creating Passion-Driven Teams show you how to tap your team's natural motivations and achieve consistent, sustained top performance.
How Extraordinary Leaders Double ProfitJim Clemmer
We've spent years decoding leadership trends, and we've discovered a pattern that's likely to pique your interest: extraordinary leaders can double profits.
Frontline leaders are often average in their performance and development. This has negative implications for organizations, including loss of productivity, engagement, and profitability. There are two main reasons for this:
1. The selection of frontline leaders is often left more to chance than a deliberate process, relying too heavily on manager recommendations rather than validated tools like simulations, tests, and behavioral interviews.
2. Interpersonal skills are the most common reason frontline leaders fail, as developing these skills is often overlooked in leadership development.
Organizations that use validated selection tools and prioritize interpersonal skills development have stronger leadership pipelines and report their frontline leaders as more capable and confident. However, most organizations are only doing an
"I'm the boss!"
It's a common mistake to think management is defined by formal authority—the ability that comes with a title to impose your will on others. In fact, formal authority is a useful but limited tool.
People Want More Than a Formal, Authority-Based Relationship with the Boss
Many managers—especially those who were achievement-driven stars as individual performers—don't even think about relationships. They're so task oriented that they put the work to be done and their authority as boss at the heart of what they do and assume they can ignore the human aspects of working with others.
The problem is that most people don't want your authority to be the be-all and end-all of the relationship. They want a personal, human connection, an emotional link. They want you to care about them as individuals. They want you to encourage their growth and development. Research tells us this kind of human relationship with the boss is a key factor determining an employee's level of engagement with the work.
We know of a small-company owner, a warm, decent woman, so pressed for time she consciously decided to avoid small talk at the office. She never opened up to people about herself or asked about their lives and interests. She didn't, that is, until her people rose up and expressed, through an intermediary, that they hated how she treated them. They wanted a real human connection with her, even if she was "the boss."
Effective communication is essential for organizational success. Communication allows for the exchange of information between individuals and helps coordinate work. Barriers like selective perception and defensiveness can interfere with communication. Informal networks also facilitate information sharing. Modern technologies have revolutionized workplace communication through tools like email and telecommuting. However, remote work can lead to social isolation. Overall, communication is key for managing employees, promoting understanding, and achieving organizational goals.
Leaders who develop coaching skills can significantly increase employee engagement, productivity and bottom-line results. The document describes a workshop called "The Extraordinary Coach" that teaches essential coaching skills to help leaders inspire and maximize the performance of their employees. Research shows that strong coaching from leaders can increase employee commitment, satisfaction, and retention while decreasing thoughts of quitting.
1) Intrinsic motivation within employees is important for an organization's success and is strengthened when employees' values are aligned with the company's values.
2) Organizations should focus on encouraging employees' positive intrinsic motivation through autonomy, goal-setting, counseling instead of discipline, and allowing employees to learn from mistakes.
3) Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are important, but too much focus on extrinsic motivators like rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation if not balanced properly. Organizations should aim to enhance employees' intrinsic drive.
This document provides a summary of leadership and management styles. It begins by defining the differences between leadership and management, noting that leaders focus on vision and innovation while managers focus on carrying out plans and maintaining structure. It then discusses popular leadership styles like visionary and management styles like participative. The document also addresses the importance of relationships between managers and employees, emphasizing the need for clear boundaries and avoiding favoritism to maintain a productive work environment.
This document discusses the importance of leaders looking inward at themselves during times of organizational change. It argues that change efforts often fail because leaders do not make fundamental changes within themselves. To successfully drive change, leaders must develop both profile awareness and state awareness. Profile awareness involves understanding one's typical tendencies, while state awareness is recognizing one's inner state in the moment. Developing these self-awareness skills allows leaders to close the gap between their intentions and actions, thereby increasing their ability to lead change. The document advocates mapping one's "Big Four" inner roles - Dreamer, Thinker, Lover, and Warrior - to develop profile awareness and adopting an "inner lookout" to develop state awareness. Mastering self-
This document summarizes a workshop on motivation given by Rick Miller of Pro356 Consulting. The workshop examined what is known about motivation and whether typical business approaches align with research findings. Miller discussed the history of motivation theories, from Motivation 1.0 focusing on survival instincts to modern Motivation 3.0 emphasizing self-motivation. Key theorists such as Herzberg and Deming were cited for challenging traditional views of using only external rewards and punishments. The workshop addressed open questions about whether incentive plans achieve long-term goals and how motivation is impacted in today's work environments.
Professional development for strategic managersMohyee3liShahin
The document outlines a personal development plan for a leader. It begins with conducting a skills audit to evaluate the leader's current skills and identify any gaps needed to meet leadership requirements. Various techniques are used to assess the leader's preferred learning style and professional skills. Next, a personal development plan is constructed to develop skills in areas like decision making, delegation, self-confidence, and conflict management. Objectives and measurements for success are outlined for each skill. Finally, suitable methods like SMART goals and performance reviews will be used to assess the outcomes of the personal development plan against the leader's work objectives.
Developing the skill of strategic thinkingJames Neils
This document discusses developing the skill of strategic thinking. It notes that research finds managers and executives perform poorly at strategic thinking, despite its importance. While strategic thinking is seen as the domain of upper management, the document argues it should be taught to all staff. It explores using flowcharts as a starting point to train all employees in strategic thinking. Strategic thinking is a learned skill, not a trait of any particular position. Regular strategic thinking sessions and practice are needed to develop this important management ability.
Many believe that the selection of the CEO is the single most important decision that a board of directors can make. In recent years, several high profile transitions at major corporations have cast a spotlight on succession and called into question the reliability of the process that companies use to identify and develop future leaders.
In this Closer Look, we examine seven common myths relating to CEO succession. These myths include the beliefs that:
1. Companies Know Who the Next CEO Will Be
2. There is One Best Model for Succession
3. The CEO Should Pick a Successor
4. Succession is Primarily a “Risk Management” Exercise
5. Boards Know How to Evaluate CEO Talent
6. Boards Prefer Internal Candidates
7. Boards Want a Female or Minority CEO
We examine each of these myths and explain why they do not always hold true. We ask:
• Why aren’t more companies prepared for a change at the top?
• Would directors make better hiring decisions if they had better knowledge of the senior management team?
• Would they be more likely to hire a CEO from within?
• Would they be more likely to hire a female or minority candidate?
• How many succession should a director participate in before he or she is considered “qualified” to lead one?
Read the Closer Look and let us know what you think!
The document discusses performance management. It covers setting goals, monitoring performance, providing feedback, and using rewards and consequences. Effective performance management involves defining expectations, setting SMART goals, regularly evaluating progress, providing constructive feedback, and linking rewards to performance. When done well, performance management can boost employee engagement, productivity and retention. However, many organizations struggle with performance management due to biases, lack of time and disconnects between policies and practice.
Driving Organizational Performance in Uncertain Times - Mark Kinnich 031710Mark Kinnich
This document discusses driving organizational performance in uncertain times through alignment and engagement. It begins by outlining challenges to performance like strategy execution difficulties and lack of employee engagement. It then argues that alignment between strategy, structure, leadership and people practices creates organizational culture and drives engagement and performance. When an organization is aligned, decision making is faster, the workforce is more focused and nimble, and performance improves. The key is leveraging human capital through alignment to unlock untapped energy and intelligence in the workforce.
The article discusses the seven stages of developing strategic leadership abilities over the course of a career. It argues that strategic leadership can be strengthened through self-directed neuroplasticity, where focusing attention on high-level thinking rewires the brain. The seven stages involve: 1) mastering impulses through executive function, 2) thinking about what others think through mentalizing, 3) becoming habitually self-aware through applied mindfulness, 4) balancing integrity and pragmatism, 5) managing success, 6) expanding aspirations, and 7) building a lasting legacy. Going through these stages shifts one's thinking to a "high ground" that favors long-term strategic decision-making over short-term problem solving and helps one
Employee engagement in the US workforce has remained stagnant since 2000, with only 30% of employees engaged and the majority (70%) not reaching their full potential. Gallup research shows that engagement improves key performance outcomes like productivity, profitability, customer ratings and reduces absenteeism and turnover. Companies that have higher ratios of engaged to disengaged employees experience significantly higher earnings per share compared to their competitors. The report examines trends in engagement and strategies that companies can adopt to improve engagement among their employees.
Driving Organizational Performance in Complex Times - Mark Kinnich 031710Mark Kinnich
This document discusses driving organizational performance in complex times. It argues that alignment is critical for sustainable organizational performance. Alignment means there is agreement on an organization's direction, operating philosophy, and relationships. Through alignment, organizations unleash the untapped intelligence and energy of their workforce. Aligned organizations are more focused, nimble, have faster decision making, and consistent environments, allowing them to attract and retain better talent and achieve improved performance.
Volume 13, issue 3, july 2012 review of ijasmin849794
This document summarizes a study on executive coaching as a tool for implementing organizational change. It discusses how coaching can help executives inspire change in employee behavior to initiate and sustain organizational changes. It outlines two levels of analysis for implementing coaching during change processes - analyzing individual perceptions and their effects, and the institutional approach to change management. It then describes theories of organizational change, such as the four frameworks model and intentional change theory, and how coaching can facilitate change using these frameworks. Coaching aims to help individuals and organizations approach change in a mindful, sustainable way through various stages of discovery and development.
American business is losing its war on customer engagement.
As a quick reminder on why we took up arms in the first place, it was June 2013 when Gallup first released its State of The American Workplace study that revealed only 30 percent of the nation's workers were fully engaged in their jobs.
Since then, companies have gone on to launch all kinds of well-intended missions, campaigns and strategies, all with the goal of upending apathy, discontent – and the low discretionary effort too often displayed by their rank and file employees.
The document provides information about 360-degree feedback and its implementation. It discusses that 360-degree feedback involves collecting performance evaluations on an individual from their supervisor, peers, customers, direct reports, and themselves. It then lists several recommendations for implementing a 360-degree feedback system, including carefully selecting raters, ensuring confidentiality, providing feedback reports that compare self-ratings to others' ratings, and following up with training and coaching. The document emphasizes that 360-degree feedback can provide a broader perspective on performance and facilitate greater self-development for employees.
Motivation plays a key role in many aspects of life including work, education, and goal achievement. There are two main types of motivation: intrinsic motivation which comes from internal satisfaction or enjoyment, and extrinsic motivation which comes from external rewards or incentives. Hewlett's Hierarchy of Work Motivators identifies different levels of needs from basic needs like salary and benefits to higher level needs like achievement and growth. Understanding what motivates employees and meeting their various needs can increase productivity and satisfaction in the workplace. Effective motivational strategies include empowerment, participation, flexible work arrangements, and reward systems tied to performance.
Whether you want to increase employee engagement or boost profitability, great leadership in an organization matters. Leaders are the primary factor behind employee commitment and productivity. Further, these factors impact a company's bottom-line, meaning leadership, good or bad, can drastically affect the success of an organization.
Many large companies are moving away from annual performance reviews that rank employees and instead focusing on more frequent, informal conversations about performance and development. Research shows this approach improves employee engagement and conversation quality. It works best when companies provide frameworks for regular check-ins, ensure conversations focus on the future, and support the transition through training and messaging. Going forward, some companies are exploring building a culture where employees regularly ask for feedback rather than just receiving it.
MAKING OB WORK FOR MEWhat Is OB and Why Is It ImportantTH.docxcroysierkathey
MAKING OB WORK FOR ME
What Is OB and Why Is It Important?
THE VALUE OF OB TO MY JOB AND CAREER
The termorganizational behavior (OB)describes an interdisciplinary field dedicated to understanding and managing people at work. To achieve this goal, OB draws on research and practice from many disciplines, including:
· Anthropology
· Economics
· Ethics
· Management
· Organizational theory
· Political science
· Psychology
· Sociology
· Statistics
· Vocational counseling
How OB Fits into My Curriculum and Influences My SuccessA Contingency Perspective—The Contemporary Foundation of OB
Acontingency approachcalls for using the OB concepts and tools that best suit the situation, instead of trying to rely on “one best way.” This means there is no single best way to manage people, teams, or organizations. A particular management practice that worked today may not work tomorrow. What worked with one employee may not work with another. The best or most effective course of action instead depends on the situation.
Thus, to be effective you need to do what is appropriate given the situation, rather than adhering to hard-and-fast rules or defaulting to personal preferences or organizational norms. Organizational behavior specialists, and many effective managers, embrace the contingency approach because it helps them consider the many factors that influence the behavior and performance of individuals, groups, and organizations. Taking a broader, contingent perspective like this is a fundamental key to your success in the short and the long term.How Self-Awareness Can Help You Build a Fulfilling Career
The Stanford Graduate School of Business asked the members of its Advisory Council which skills are most important for their MBA students to learn. The most frequent answer was self-awareness.6 The implication is that to have a successful career you need to know who you are, what you want, and how others perceive you. Larry Bossidy (former CEO of Honeywell) and Ram Charan (world-renowned management expert) said it best in their book Execution: “When you know yourself, you are comfortable with your strengths and not crippled by your shortcomings. … Self-awareness gives you the capacity to learnPage 6 from your mistakes as well as your successes. It enables you to keep growing.”9 They also argue that you need to know yourself in order to be authentic—real and not fake, the same on the outside as the inside. Authenticity is essential to influencing others, which we discuss in detail in Chapter 12. People don’t trust fakes, and it is difficult to influence or manage others if they don’t trust you.
As professors, consultants, and authors, we couldn’t agree more! To help you increase your self-awareness we include multiple Self-Assessments in every chapter. These are an excellent way to learn about yourself and see how OB can be applied at school, at work, and in your personal life. Go to Connect, complete the assessments, and then answer the questions included in ...
"I'm the boss!"
It's a common mistake to think management is defined by formal authority—the ability that comes with a title to impose your will on others. In fact, formal authority is a useful but limited tool.
People Want More Than a Formal, Authority-Based Relationship with the Boss
Many managers—especially those who were achievement-driven stars as individual performers—don't even think about relationships. They're so task oriented that they put the work to be done and their authority as boss at the heart of what they do and assume they can ignore the human aspects of working with others.
The problem is that most people don't want your authority to be the be-all and end-all of the relationship. They want a personal, human connection, an emotional link. They want you to care about them as individuals. They want you to encourage their growth and development. Research tells us this kind of human relationship with the boss is a key factor determining an employee's level of engagement with the work.
We know of a small-company owner, a warm, decent woman, so pressed for time she consciously decided to avoid small talk at the office. She never opened up to people about herself or asked about their lives and interests. She didn't, that is, until her people rose up and expressed, through an intermediary, that they hated how she treated them. They wanted a real human connection with her, even if she was "the boss."
Effective communication is essential for organizational success. Communication allows for the exchange of information between individuals and helps coordinate work. Barriers like selective perception and defensiveness can interfere with communication. Informal networks also facilitate information sharing. Modern technologies have revolutionized workplace communication through tools like email and telecommuting. However, remote work can lead to social isolation. Overall, communication is key for managing employees, promoting understanding, and achieving organizational goals.
Leaders who develop coaching skills can significantly increase employee engagement, productivity and bottom-line results. The document describes a workshop called "The Extraordinary Coach" that teaches essential coaching skills to help leaders inspire and maximize the performance of their employees. Research shows that strong coaching from leaders can increase employee commitment, satisfaction, and retention while decreasing thoughts of quitting.
1) Intrinsic motivation within employees is important for an organization's success and is strengthened when employees' values are aligned with the company's values.
2) Organizations should focus on encouraging employees' positive intrinsic motivation through autonomy, goal-setting, counseling instead of discipline, and allowing employees to learn from mistakes.
3) Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are important, but too much focus on extrinsic motivators like rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation if not balanced properly. Organizations should aim to enhance employees' intrinsic drive.
This document provides a summary of leadership and management styles. It begins by defining the differences between leadership and management, noting that leaders focus on vision and innovation while managers focus on carrying out plans and maintaining structure. It then discusses popular leadership styles like visionary and management styles like participative. The document also addresses the importance of relationships between managers and employees, emphasizing the need for clear boundaries and avoiding favoritism to maintain a productive work environment.
This document discusses the importance of leaders looking inward at themselves during times of organizational change. It argues that change efforts often fail because leaders do not make fundamental changes within themselves. To successfully drive change, leaders must develop both profile awareness and state awareness. Profile awareness involves understanding one's typical tendencies, while state awareness is recognizing one's inner state in the moment. Developing these self-awareness skills allows leaders to close the gap between their intentions and actions, thereby increasing their ability to lead change. The document advocates mapping one's "Big Four" inner roles - Dreamer, Thinker, Lover, and Warrior - to develop profile awareness and adopting an "inner lookout" to develop state awareness. Mastering self-
This document summarizes a workshop on motivation given by Rick Miller of Pro356 Consulting. The workshop examined what is known about motivation and whether typical business approaches align with research findings. Miller discussed the history of motivation theories, from Motivation 1.0 focusing on survival instincts to modern Motivation 3.0 emphasizing self-motivation. Key theorists such as Herzberg and Deming were cited for challenging traditional views of using only external rewards and punishments. The workshop addressed open questions about whether incentive plans achieve long-term goals and how motivation is impacted in today's work environments.
Professional development for strategic managersMohyee3liShahin
The document outlines a personal development plan for a leader. It begins with conducting a skills audit to evaluate the leader's current skills and identify any gaps needed to meet leadership requirements. Various techniques are used to assess the leader's preferred learning style and professional skills. Next, a personal development plan is constructed to develop skills in areas like decision making, delegation, self-confidence, and conflict management. Objectives and measurements for success are outlined for each skill. Finally, suitable methods like SMART goals and performance reviews will be used to assess the outcomes of the personal development plan against the leader's work objectives.
Developing the skill of strategic thinkingJames Neils
This document discusses developing the skill of strategic thinking. It notes that research finds managers and executives perform poorly at strategic thinking, despite its importance. While strategic thinking is seen as the domain of upper management, the document argues it should be taught to all staff. It explores using flowcharts as a starting point to train all employees in strategic thinking. Strategic thinking is a learned skill, not a trait of any particular position. Regular strategic thinking sessions and practice are needed to develop this important management ability.
Many believe that the selection of the CEO is the single most important decision that a board of directors can make. In recent years, several high profile transitions at major corporations have cast a spotlight on succession and called into question the reliability of the process that companies use to identify and develop future leaders.
In this Closer Look, we examine seven common myths relating to CEO succession. These myths include the beliefs that:
1. Companies Know Who the Next CEO Will Be
2. There is One Best Model for Succession
3. The CEO Should Pick a Successor
4. Succession is Primarily a “Risk Management” Exercise
5. Boards Know How to Evaluate CEO Talent
6. Boards Prefer Internal Candidates
7. Boards Want a Female or Minority CEO
We examine each of these myths and explain why they do not always hold true. We ask:
• Why aren’t more companies prepared for a change at the top?
• Would directors make better hiring decisions if they had better knowledge of the senior management team?
• Would they be more likely to hire a CEO from within?
• Would they be more likely to hire a female or minority candidate?
• How many succession should a director participate in before he or she is considered “qualified” to lead one?
Read the Closer Look and let us know what you think!
The document discusses performance management. It covers setting goals, monitoring performance, providing feedback, and using rewards and consequences. Effective performance management involves defining expectations, setting SMART goals, regularly evaluating progress, providing constructive feedback, and linking rewards to performance. When done well, performance management can boost employee engagement, productivity and retention. However, many organizations struggle with performance management due to biases, lack of time and disconnects between policies and practice.
Driving Organizational Performance in Uncertain Times - Mark Kinnich 031710Mark Kinnich
This document discusses driving organizational performance in uncertain times through alignment and engagement. It begins by outlining challenges to performance like strategy execution difficulties and lack of employee engagement. It then argues that alignment between strategy, structure, leadership and people practices creates organizational culture and drives engagement and performance. When an organization is aligned, decision making is faster, the workforce is more focused and nimble, and performance improves. The key is leveraging human capital through alignment to unlock untapped energy and intelligence in the workforce.
The article discusses the seven stages of developing strategic leadership abilities over the course of a career. It argues that strategic leadership can be strengthened through self-directed neuroplasticity, where focusing attention on high-level thinking rewires the brain. The seven stages involve: 1) mastering impulses through executive function, 2) thinking about what others think through mentalizing, 3) becoming habitually self-aware through applied mindfulness, 4) balancing integrity and pragmatism, 5) managing success, 6) expanding aspirations, and 7) building a lasting legacy. Going through these stages shifts one's thinking to a "high ground" that favors long-term strategic decision-making over short-term problem solving and helps one
Employee engagement in the US workforce has remained stagnant since 2000, with only 30% of employees engaged and the majority (70%) not reaching their full potential. Gallup research shows that engagement improves key performance outcomes like productivity, profitability, customer ratings and reduces absenteeism and turnover. Companies that have higher ratios of engaged to disengaged employees experience significantly higher earnings per share compared to their competitors. The report examines trends in engagement and strategies that companies can adopt to improve engagement among their employees.
Driving Organizational Performance in Complex Times - Mark Kinnich 031710Mark Kinnich
This document discusses driving organizational performance in complex times. It argues that alignment is critical for sustainable organizational performance. Alignment means there is agreement on an organization's direction, operating philosophy, and relationships. Through alignment, organizations unleash the untapped intelligence and energy of their workforce. Aligned organizations are more focused, nimble, have faster decision making, and consistent environments, allowing them to attract and retain better talent and achieve improved performance.
Volume 13, issue 3, july 2012 review of ijasmin849794
This document summarizes a study on executive coaching as a tool for implementing organizational change. It discusses how coaching can help executives inspire change in employee behavior to initiate and sustain organizational changes. It outlines two levels of analysis for implementing coaching during change processes - analyzing individual perceptions and their effects, and the institutional approach to change management. It then describes theories of organizational change, such as the four frameworks model and intentional change theory, and how coaching can facilitate change using these frameworks. Coaching aims to help individuals and organizations approach change in a mindful, sustainable way through various stages of discovery and development.
American business is losing its war on customer engagement.
As a quick reminder on why we took up arms in the first place, it was June 2013 when Gallup first released its State of The American Workplace study that revealed only 30 percent of the nation's workers were fully engaged in their jobs.
Since then, companies have gone on to launch all kinds of well-intended missions, campaigns and strategies, all with the goal of upending apathy, discontent – and the low discretionary effort too often displayed by their rank and file employees.
The document provides information about 360-degree feedback and its implementation. It discusses that 360-degree feedback involves collecting performance evaluations on an individual from their supervisor, peers, customers, direct reports, and themselves. It then lists several recommendations for implementing a 360-degree feedback system, including carefully selecting raters, ensuring confidentiality, providing feedback reports that compare self-ratings to others' ratings, and following up with training and coaching. The document emphasizes that 360-degree feedback can provide a broader perspective on performance and facilitate greater self-development for employees.
Motivation plays a key role in many aspects of life including work, education, and goal achievement. There are two main types of motivation: intrinsic motivation which comes from internal satisfaction or enjoyment, and extrinsic motivation which comes from external rewards or incentives. Hewlett's Hierarchy of Work Motivators identifies different levels of needs from basic needs like salary and benefits to higher level needs like achievement and growth. Understanding what motivates employees and meeting their various needs can increase productivity and satisfaction in the workplace. Effective motivational strategies include empowerment, participation, flexible work arrangements, and reward systems tied to performance.
Whether you want to increase employee engagement or boost profitability, great leadership in an organization matters. Leaders are the primary factor behind employee commitment and productivity. Further, these factors impact a company's bottom-line, meaning leadership, good or bad, can drastically affect the success of an organization.
Many large companies are moving away from annual performance reviews that rank employees and instead focusing on more frequent, informal conversations about performance and development. Research shows this approach improves employee engagement and conversation quality. It works best when companies provide frameworks for regular check-ins, ensure conversations focus on the future, and support the transition through training and messaging. Going forward, some companies are exploring building a culture where employees regularly ask for feedback rather than just receiving it.
MAKING OB WORK FOR MEWhat Is OB and Why Is It ImportantTH.docxcroysierkathey
MAKING OB WORK FOR ME
What Is OB and Why Is It Important?
THE VALUE OF OB TO MY JOB AND CAREER
The termorganizational behavior (OB)describes an interdisciplinary field dedicated to understanding and managing people at work. To achieve this goal, OB draws on research and practice from many disciplines, including:
· Anthropology
· Economics
· Ethics
· Management
· Organizational theory
· Political science
· Psychology
· Sociology
· Statistics
· Vocational counseling
How OB Fits into My Curriculum and Influences My SuccessA Contingency Perspective—The Contemporary Foundation of OB
Acontingency approachcalls for using the OB concepts and tools that best suit the situation, instead of trying to rely on “one best way.” This means there is no single best way to manage people, teams, or organizations. A particular management practice that worked today may not work tomorrow. What worked with one employee may not work with another. The best or most effective course of action instead depends on the situation.
Thus, to be effective you need to do what is appropriate given the situation, rather than adhering to hard-and-fast rules or defaulting to personal preferences or organizational norms. Organizational behavior specialists, and many effective managers, embrace the contingency approach because it helps them consider the many factors that influence the behavior and performance of individuals, groups, and organizations. Taking a broader, contingent perspective like this is a fundamental key to your success in the short and the long term.How Self-Awareness Can Help You Build a Fulfilling Career
The Stanford Graduate School of Business asked the members of its Advisory Council which skills are most important for their MBA students to learn. The most frequent answer was self-awareness.6 The implication is that to have a successful career you need to know who you are, what you want, and how others perceive you. Larry Bossidy (former CEO of Honeywell) and Ram Charan (world-renowned management expert) said it best in their book Execution: “When you know yourself, you are comfortable with your strengths and not crippled by your shortcomings. … Self-awareness gives you the capacity to learnPage 6 from your mistakes as well as your successes. It enables you to keep growing.”9 They also argue that you need to know yourself in order to be authentic—real and not fake, the same on the outside as the inside. Authenticity is essential to influencing others, which we discuss in detail in Chapter 12. People don’t trust fakes, and it is difficult to influence or manage others if they don’t trust you.
As professors, consultants, and authors, we couldn’t agree more! To help you increase your self-awareness we include multiple Self-Assessments in every chapter. These are an excellent way to learn about yourself and see how OB can be applied at school, at work, and in your personal life. Go to Connect, complete the assessments, and then answer the questions included in ...
This Leadership Brief Express (LBE) begins where my last LBE (Engaging Employees - It's not Rocket Science) left off. It describes the actions companies need to take to improve their management’s ability to engage employees, leading to an increase in creativity, productivity, commitment and profits! I look forward to supporting your efforts! Dave Fleck
This document discusses measuring leadership in companies. It makes the following key points:
1) While companies closely track metrics like finances, quality, and surveys, few directly measure if they have the right leaders now and for the future. Developing leaders is important but difficult to measure precisely.
2) Top companies take a holistic approach to leadership measurement, gathering data to provide insights for human resources, business leaders, people managers, and potential leaders themselves.
3) Examples of companies like Cummins use frameworks to rigorously assess employees' performance and potential, focusing on specific leadership attributes needed for business goals. Surveys also give feedback to better develop individual potential leaders.
The document discusses competencies that are critical for CEO success as identified by interviews with successful CEOs in the Research Triangle region of North Carolina. The top competencies included: knowing how to sell, organize resources, surround oneself with great people, bring out the best in others, embody trust and honesty, maintain commitment to vision, learn from mistakes, seek the best mentors, communicate effectively, listen well, make tough decisions, develop talent, and understand the difference between leadership and management. It recommends using behavioral interview questions focused on demonstrating past performance of these competencies to identify the best CEO candidates.
Lori Goler is the head of People at Facebook. Janelle Gal.docxjeremylockett77
Lori Goler is the head
of People at Facebook.
Janelle Gale is the head
of HR Business Partners
at Facebook. Adam Grant
is a professor at Wharton,
a Facebook consultant,
and the author of Originals
and Give and Take.
ZS
U
ZS
A
N
N
A
IL
IJ
IN
HBR.ORG
Let’s Not Kill
Performance
Evaluations Yet
Facebook’s experience shows
why they can still be valuable.
BY LORI GOLER, JANELLE GALE, AND ADAM GRANT
November 2016 Harvard Business Review 91
LET’S NOT KILL PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS YET
tThe reality is, even when companies get rid of performance evaluations, ratings still exist. Employees just can’t see them. Ratings are done sub-jectively, behind the scenes, and without input from the people being evaluated.
Performance is the value of employees’ contribu-
tions to the organization over time. And that value
needs to be assessed in some way. Decisions about
pay and promotions have to be made. As research-
ers pointed out in a recent debate in Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, “Performance is always
rated in some manner.” If you don’t have formal
evaluations, the ratings will be hidden in a black box.
At Facebook we analyzed our performance man-
agement system a few years ago. We conducted fo-
cus groups and a follow-up survey with more than
300 people. The feedback was clear: 87% of people
wanted to keep performance ratings.
Yes, performance evaluations have costs—but
they have benefits, too. We decided to hang on
to them for three reasons: fairness, transparency,
and development.
Making Things Fair
We all want performance evaluations to be fair. That
isn’t always the outcome, but as more than 9,000
managers and employees reported in a global sur-
vey by CEB, not having evaluations is worse. Every
organization has people who are unhappy with their
bonuses or disappointed that they weren’t pro-
moted. But research has long shown that when the
process is fair, employees are more willing to accept
undesirable outcomes. A fair process exists when
evaluators are credible and motivated to get it right,
and employees have a voice. Without evaluations,
people are left in the dark about who is gauging their
contributions and how.
At Facebook, to mitigate bias and do things sys-
tematically, we start by having peers write evalua-
tions. They share them not just with managers but
also, in most cases, with one another—which reflects
the company’s core values of openness and transpar-
ency. Then decisions are made about performance:
Managers sit together and discuss their reports
face-to-face, defending and championing, debating
and deliberating, and incorporating peer feedback.
Here the goal is to minimize the “idiosyncratic rater
effect”—also known as personal opinion. People
aren’t unduly punished when individual managers
are hard graders or unfairly rewarded when they’re
easy graders.
Next managers write the performance reviews.
We have a team of analysts who examine evalua-
tions f.
The High Potential Traits Inventory (MacRae, 2012; MacRae & Furnham, 2014) was designed to provide an accurate, valid and clear measure of personality at work.
Originally composed of ten factors and characteristics related to success and leadership capability, the traits were recombined into six common factors (MacRae, 2012), which are most relevant for the workplace using Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modelling.
Six High Potenital Traits (MacRae, 2012):
Conscientiousness,
Adjustment,
Curiosity,
Risk Approach,
Ambiguity Acceptance, and
Competitiveness.
Three key points:
1) Many US corporations face a potential leadership crisis as baby boomers retire without adequate replacements due to a lack of leadership development programs.
2) Two factors distinguish top Asian leadership organizations: attention to individual and corporate leadership needs, and accelerating key talent through custom training.
3) Highly effective leaders are made, not born - leadership behaviors can be identified, developed and taught to produce strong business leaders. Formal leadership development programs are needed to address the looming leadership gap.
Made public from McLean & Company, Dr. Dalton Kehoe contributes to build evidence-based HR practices that work with the brain, not against it, to gain credibility with stakeholders and drive business results.
4 Reasons CEOs Struggle to Align Employee Goals to Corporate StrategyKhorus
As CEO, your job is to ensure your company is profitable. If your employees aren’t sure how their job contributes to that purpose, you might be fighting an uphill battle. Getting your employees on the same page with the executive team starts with recognizing where the breakdown is occurring. As they say, the first step to recovery is admitting there is a problem.
One of the most revealing metrics in determining if your employees understand their purpose is if they can answer the simple question, “What is it you do every day and how does that affect why we exist?” If not, it’s likely due to a lack of communication from the top down – that means you. This eBook can serve as a wakeup call for any CEO wondering how they can get the most out of their employees and ensure everyone is working towards the corporate vision.
This document discusses motivation in the workplace. It defines motivation and outlines several theories of motivation, including instinct, incentive, arousal, drive, and humanistic theories. It discusses why motivating both employees and managers is important for productivity, revenue, and satisfaction. It provides techniques for motivating managers, such as praise, respect, education, feedback, and incentives. For motivating employees, it suggests treating them as partners, keeping them informed, providing training and resources, and building trust. The conclusion emphasizes that small gestures and relationships with managers are often more motivating than material rewards.
This document discusses motivation in the workplace. It defines motivation and outlines several theories of motivation, including instinct, incentive, arousal, drive, and humanistic theories. It discusses why motivating both employees and managers is important for productivity and performance. It provides techniques for motivating managers, such as praise, respect, education, feedback, and incentives. For motivating employees, it suggests treating them as partners, keeping them informed, providing training and resources, and building trust. The conclusion emphasizes that what motivates individuals varies and small gestures can be effective.
1. A study was conducted to identify factors that cause staff to feel drained at an educational institution. A survey was administered to staff at Smt Sulochanadevi Singhania School to rate 14 potential factors.
2. The top priorities identified were lack of freedom, confusion at higher levels, repetitive work, and rigid rules/conditions. Other factors included lack of trust, direction, and recognition.
3. When surveyed again after 3 months, some priorities shifted slightly, but the top concerns remained the same. This provided insight into which issues required more attention from leadership.
Great managers break conventional rules of management in order to get the best performance from employees. They focus on selecting employees based on talents, not experience or intelligence. They define desired outcomes rather than directly controlling how employees do their work. And they concentrate on developing existing strengths in employees rather than trying to fix weaknesses. The keys for great managers are selecting the right people for jobs based on their natural talents, setting appropriate expectations focused on outcomes, motivating employees by recognizing strengths, and helping employees find roles that are the best fit for their talents.
The document summarizes the results of a survey conducted by the CIPD Guernsey Branch on performance management practices in Guernsey. Some key findings include:
- Respondents had varying views of their performance management systems, with the top answers being "good" and "inconsistent". Systems were viewed more positively when reviews occurred more frequently and involved wider input.
- While annual appraisals are still universally used, many employers are looking to change elements like the format, use of continuous feedback, or new IT systems rather than abandoning the process.
- Most respondents had used performance improvement plans in the past three years, and most saw improved performance or resignations as outcomes rather than grievances.
In this file, you can ref useful information about need for performance appraisal such as need for performance appraisal methods, need for performance appraisal tips, need for performance appraisal forms, need for performance appraisal phrases … If you need more assistant for need for performance appraisal, please leave your comment at the end of file.
This document discusses key concepts of leadership including:
1. The four functions of management are planning, organizing, leading, and controlling. Effective planning sets goals and strategies to achieve objectives.
2. Different leadership styles exist depending on the situation, including styles focused on tasks versus people. Situational leadership adapts to different situations.
3. Effective leaders inspire and motivate followers, create other leaders, and take action rather than just planning. Good leadership requires vision, engagement, role modeling, and continuous improvement.
15Five's Guide To Creating High Performing TeamsDavid Hassell
Managing a team has never been more complex. Knowledge-based workers are challenging status-quo leadership at every turn. How will you keep your A-players, ensure their happiness and call forth their best week after week?
15Five's Guide To Creating High Performing Teams contains helpful management tips on everything from building better relationships with employees to supercharging meetings and performance reviews.
The document discusses how established companies can become more data-driven through a strategic transformation. It provides examples of how the Spanish hotel chain Ilunion and Transport for London used data analytics to improve decision making. The key steps for companies include linking data initiatives to business goals, creating a data-driven culture where all employees use data in their work, and implementing technology infrastructure to make relevant data and insights accessible. Becoming truly data-driven requires addressing cultural and technical barriers and viewing data as a strategic asset.
This document discusses how emerging technologies like blockchain, IoT, and AI can be used to automate trust and verification of assets and credentials. It provides examples of how supply chains, employee verification, and collaborative R&D projects could benefit from these technologies by creating secure and immutable records to track assets and credentials in real-time. This automated trust could reduce costs associated with counterfeiting and validation while also enabling new business models and revenue streams through secure data sharing and analytics.
An Conghui, president of Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and CEO of Geely Auto Group, explains the future of flying cars and the value of an international brand.
Telecom companies are struggling to find a profitable identity in today's digital sphere. The article suggests they could help customers control their personal data by offering "personal data manager" services that give users control over what data is collected and how it is used. By 2025, such services could allow users to monetize their data and recapture up to a quarter of the $400 billion value of the data economy. Telecom companies are well positioned to offer these services due to their network infrastructure, customer relationships, and experience in data and government regulation.
Governments around the world are developing national AI strategies to encourage innovation, protect citizens, and compete globally in artificial intelligence. These strategies aim to boost economic growth while addressing concerns about privacy, bias, jobs, and other issues. The document urges businesses to engage with governments on developing policies to help manage various tradeoffs around AI, such as innovation vs regulation and transparency vs vulnerability. National strategies and international cooperation will be important to balance opportunities and risks as AI increasingly transforms society and business.
The document discusses challenges faced by Chief Strategy Officers (CSOs) in fulfilling their role. It finds that only 25% of CSOs feel very successful in creating value for their company. Common issues CSOs face include unclear priorities, spending too much time on tactical tasks instead of strategy, and not having a strong voice at the leadership table. It provides recommendations for companies to better utilize their CSO, such as making strategy a top executive priority, improving the strategic planning process, and clarifying the CSO's role and focus on strategic questions. When implemented, these recommendations can help CSOs unlock their full potential to drive company strategy and competitive advantage.
The corporate center of many major companies will undergo significant changes over the next 5 years. The size of headquarters will shrink as more transactional work is outsourced and automated, reducing costs by 25-40%. Headquarters staff will transition from administrators to specialized experts in areas like data analytics, digital technologies, and change management. Corporate functions will be restructured as flexible, cross-functional teams that form around priorities and dissolve when work is complete. This will require recruiting new types of digital talent and offering more flexible employment.
For Greg Lehmkuhl, president and CEO of Lineage Logistics, temperature-controlled supply chains for perishables are one of the world’s next great platforms.
Henry Schein has embraced a stakeholder value approach that focuses on long-term trust-based partnerships with key stakeholders like customers, employees, and suppliers. This approach seeks to harness the power of these stakeholder partnerships by designing a system like a flywheel that efficiently stores and releases the energy generated by stakeholders. Building this stakeholder flywheel requires aligning the company's purpose, strategy, culture, and execution around creating trust with stakeholders so they are willing to contribute their time, energy, and passion. Henry Schein's focus on performance, caring, and purpose has energized stakeholders and powered the flywheel effect, producing long-term value for all stakeholders including investors and society.
This document discusses how some companies have achieved unprecedented power and success by leveraging three new forms of capital: behavior capital, cognitive capital, and network capital. It provides examples of how companies like Amazon, Google, and healthcare consortia are using these new sources of capital to transform industries. The document argues that to thrive in this new "bionic" business environment, all companies will need to undergo a transformation and reinvent what they do and who they benefit by shifting from a supply-oriented to demand-oriented approach, treating knowledge as flows rather than stocks, and adopting a platform business model.
As more and more companies in a range of industries adopt machine learning and more advanced AI algorithms, the ability to provide understandable explanations for different stakeholders becomes critical. If people don’t know why an AI system made a decision, they may not trust the outcome.
Leaders may think that awareness programs are suitable for addressing unconscious bias, but they are just the start. Raising awareness of unconscious bias through presentations and tests does not actually change behaviors or outcomes. To effectively address unconscious bias, organizations need to focus on changing behaviors through shared knowledge, language to discuss biases, and structural approaches like requiring diversity in hiring panels. The most effective strategies are concrete rules and policies that change outcomes by increasing minority applicants and representation, rather than just focusing on awareness.
The Thought Leader Interview: NBA Commissioner Adam Silver
00275 kill your_perfomance_ratings
1. strategy+business
issue 76 autumn 2014
Kill Your
Performance Ratings
Neuroscience shows why numbers-based HR management is obsolete.
by David Rock, Josh Davis, and Beth Jones
reprint 00275
3. Illustration by Francesco Bongiorni
Kill Your
Performance
Ratings
Neuroscience shows why numbers-based
HR management is obsolete.
by David Rock, Josh Davis, and Beth Jones
Evidence is mounting that conventional approaches to
strategic human capital management are broken. This
is particularly true for performance management (PM)
systems—the appraisal approaches in which employees
(working with their managers) set goals for the year; managers
interview others who have worked with them and write up
an appraisal; employees are rated and ranked numerically;
and salary, bonus, and promotion opportunities are awarded
accordingly. A 2013 survey by the Society for Human Resource
Management asked HR professionals about the quality of
their own PM systems; only 23 percent said their company was
above average in the way it conducted them. Other studies
uncovered even more disdain. According to the Corporate
Executive Board (CEB), a management research group,
surveys have found that 95 percent of managers are
dissatisfied with their PM systems, and 90 percent of HR
heads believe they do not yield accurate information.
feature organizations & people
2
4. strategy+business issue 76
3
David Rock
davidrock@
workplacecoaching.com
is cofounder and director of
the NeuroLeadership Institute,
a global initiative bringing
neuroscientists and leadership
experts together. He is the
author of Your Brain at Work:
Strategies for Overcoming
Distraction, Regaining Focus,
and Working Smarter All Day
Long (Harper Business, 2009).
He is also the CEO of the
NeuroLeadership Group, a
global consulting firm.
Josh Davis
joshdavis@neuroleadership.org
is director of research
and lead professor for the
NeuroLeadership Institute.
He guides the institute’s work
in translating basic science
research for business and
leadership use, and drives
strategy for new research
content. He is also a faculty
member in the department of
psychology at Barnard College
of Columbia University.
Beth Jones
bethjones@neuroleadership.com
is a senior researcher based
in Ridgway, Colo., and
a consultant with the
NeuroLeadership Group.
The performance management systems in many
companies are misleading, cumbersome, and complex,
requiring some HR departments to put aside an entire
quarter to manage them. More important, they can be
counterproductive. In the context of neuroscience re-search,
most PM practices turn out to damage the per-formance
they are intended to improve. That’s because
they are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of
human responses, as revealed in recurring patterns of
mental activity.
There are at least two basic problems with perfor-mance
management. First, labeling people with any
form of numerical rating or ranking automatically gen-erates
an overwhelming “fight or flight” response that
impairs good judgment. This neural response is the
same type of “brain hijack” that occurs when there is
an imminent physical threat like a confrontation with
a wild animal. It primes people for rapid reaction and
aggressive movement. But it is ill-suited for the kind of
thoughtful, reflective conversation that allows people to
learn from a performance review.
For example, a supervisor might say, with the best
of intentions, “You were ranked number 2 this year,
and here are some development actions for the future.”
In this company, which scores its appraisals on a 1–3
scale, a 2 ranking is supposed to represent high praise.
But a typical employee immediately disengages. Know-ing
that others were ranked still higher is enough to
provoke a brain hijack. The employee may not say any-thing
overtly, but he or she feels disregarded and under-mined—
and thus intensely inclined to ignore feedback,
push back against stretch goals, and reject the example
of positive role models.
The second problem with PM is that it fosters an in-correct
but prevalent view of human growth and learn-ing.
As Carol Dweck, the Lewis and Virginia Eaton
Professor of Psychology at Stanford University, has dis-covered,
most people hold one of two implicit theories
about human growth and learning. The “fixed mind-set,”
as she calls it, holds that intelligence and talent are
basically established at birth and remain static through-out
life. People are born smart or not, and there’s not
much anyone can do about it. The “growth mind-set,”
by contrast, holds that people learn, grow, and improve
all their lives. This is accurate; most people do learn
throughout their years. But they could learn far more
effectively, and bring more of a high-performance atti-tude
to everything they did, if they weren’t held back by
the mental paralysis associated with the fixed mind-set.
Few people are thoroughly inclined toward either
the fixed or the growth mind-set. Some people, for in-stance,
might go to work with a fixed mind-set about
their ability to be creative, believing that they can never
become any better at innovating new products than
they are today. But they might have a growth mind-set
when playing classical piano, associating the rigors of
daily practice with their ability to improve.
Unfortunately, the fixed mind-set is prevalent in
many organizations—and reinforced by PM systems.
This induces many employees to avoid the kind of
effort that leads to learning and professional growth.
Think back to your days in school. Chances are, no
one liked to appear as if he or she had to work really
hard to get good grades. They feared that others might
think they were not naturally talented. Similarly, in a
work environment where the fixed mind-set holds sway,
people will typically strive to avoid difficult challenges.
Any stretch goal or strategic imperative, no matter how
feature organizations & people
5. features title of the article
4
If you want a high-performance
organization, you have to reverse the
destructive effects of conventional
performance management.
worthy, will be seen as an invitation to fail. Unsurpris-ingly,
this mind-set also makes people more likely to
cheat. In one study, people primed just before a test with
fixed mind-set suggestions (for example, statements that
they could not change or grow) were 300 percent more
likely to cheat than their growth mind-set counterparts.
The effects on organizations are devastating. Con-ventional
performance management has been linked
to high levels of attrition, low productivity, and sig-nificant
problems with collaboration. PwC’s 17th An-nual
Global CEO Survey, conducted in 2013, found
that 93 percent of the CEOs surveyed recognized the
need to change their talent practices—something their
companies were doing wasn’t working. Meanwhile, ac-cording
to Korn Ferry Institute leadership development
researcher Robert Eichinger, the ability to “grow talent”
is ranked 67th out of 67 competencies for managers,
despite decades of investment in PM systems. In other
words, on average, managers are worse at developing
their employees than at anything else they do.
If you want a high-performance organization, you
have to reverse the destructive effects of conventional
performance management. You need to find ways to
evaluate people that recognize the unique role each
person has played in moving the organization forward.
These evaluations must be based on a growth mind-set:
They must recognize that with the right context and
conditions, anyone’s abilities can be improved, especially
given the expansive, flexible nature of the human brain.
The starting point may be educating your com-pany’s
leaders about your current performance system,
especially if it is based on numerical rankings. Because
these rankings are so deeply ingrained in most organi-zations,
and so closely tied to both the fight-or-flight
response and the fixed mind-set, you may need to build
awareness to get people ready to consider change.
Ranking and Its Discontents
In theory, a standardized, objectives-based PM system
should be a straightforward exercise. It seems logical
to set goals, provide feedback about progress during
a six- or 12-month cycle, agree at the end of the cycle
on whether these goals were achieved, and link an in-dividual’s
compensation to the results. It is also clearly
easier to manage this approach with a common rating
system for all employees. Thus, by the 1970s, most large
organizations adopted a rating system to define human
performance. Typically, these ranked people on a 1–3 or
1–5 scale. The lowest number denoted an outstanding
performer, and anyone with the highest number was a
problem employee.
Soon, many companies discovered that managers
tended to rate everyone in the middle. As one executive
from a large food manufacturer (with a 1–5 rating sys-tem)
explained, “Anything other than a 3 requires extra
work for a manager. You have to justify it if you give an
employee a 1 or 2, and you have to put the employee in a
performance improvement plan if you rank them 4 or 5.”
Starting with General Electric in the late 1980s, un-der
Jack Welch’s direction, companies tried to solve this
problem by requiring managers to differentiate their
people and spread out the ratings on a curve. In this
system, known as “forced ranking” (or “rank and
yank”), a specific percentage of people had to be ranked
at the top and bottom ranges, with their promotions
and bonuses affected accordingly. A multibillion-dollar
human capital management software industry emerged
to support this type of system, which became common-
feature organizations & people
6. strategy+business issue 76
5
People in lower-status positions have
been labeled with numbers throughout
history, as a way of dehumanizing and
demoralizing them.
ment. Performance rankings trigger that perturbed feel-ing
in all five ways:
1. Status. People in lower-status positions have been
labeled with numbers throughout history, as a way of
dehumanizing and demoralizing them. In performance
rankings in most organizations today, any number
except 1 automatically signifies a lower-status position,
with pay levels and promotion prospects to match.
People carry that number, and the insult implicit in it,
mentally around with them for a year, until their next
performance review. As Korn Ferry’s Eichinger says,
“Imagine getting a family together, lining all the kids
up in a row, and telling them how they rank compared
to each other.” Parents wouldn’t do it, because it would
make most of the family members uncomfortable—in-cluding
whoever was ranked at the top.
2. Certainty. The process of determining how peo-ple
are rated is usually set in the human resources de-partment,
and is often opaque to everyone else. People
may work as hard and as cleverly as they can, but they
still don’t know if this will get them a higher rating.
That’s because the rankings reflect not just their indi-vidual
performance, but their perceived contribution
compared to a cohort of their peers. If everyone is per-forming
optimally but the manager can reward only the
top 10 percent with the highest ranking, the employee’s
sense of control is thrown out the window.
3. Autonomy. When a student gets a poor grade at
school, there is generally a clear path to improvement—
a path that may involve studying harder or seeking extra
help. Whatever it is, the individual has some control.
In an organization, a clear path is not always evident.
Improvement may depend on factors (such as customer
response to a product or the willingness of others to
place in large companies, where it was seen as a con-sistent
way to make rewards match performance. As of
2012, according to the Wall Street Journal, more than
60 percent of Fortune 500 firms still used this approach.
Yet both managers and employees find these sys-tems
dispiriting and exhausting. Kansas State Univer-sity
management professor Satoris Culbertson, who
studied the response to more than 200 performance re-views,
argues that the mere act of receiving a numerical
rating can be perceived as negative feedback, and even
people with a growth mind-set don’t react well to nega-tive
feedback. “You would think that having so many
smart people try thousands of variations of a [ranking]
scale over decades, someone would have found the right
way to do this,” says Brian Kropp, who leads the CEB
human resources practice. “But no one has.”
The SCARF Hypothesis
Why do performance rankings trigger a fight-or-flight
response in employees’ brains? A neuroscience-based
framework called the SCARF model, codified by
David Rock, posits that five organizational factors have
an immense, but often unnoticed, effect on negative
human reactions. These factors are status (the percep-tion
of being considered better or worse than others);
certainty (the predictability of future events); autonomy
(the level of control people feel over their lives); related-ness
(the experience of sharing goals with others); and
fairness (the sense of being respected and treated equi-tably,
especially compared with others). When an orga-nization’s
perceived level of any of the SCARF factors is
low, people feel threatened and perturbed. Even if they
don’t express it, the feeling is there, and it often impairs
their productivity and willingness to show commit-
feature organizations & people
7. features title of the article
6
collaborate) that employees feel they cannot control
or even influence. Though workers may actually have
more influence than they think, the ratings trigger a
sense of lack of autonomy. They reinforce the percep-tion
that the employee is neither trusted nor empow-ered.
Moreover, in most PM systems, the focus is on
past performance, not on future potential. This sends
an unconscious message to employees: Their capacities
are fixed and may never change. If those workers have
not had much autonomy, or experienced it in the past,
they are unlikely to see that change in the future.
4. Relatedness. If only one person can be given
the top rating and get the best bonus, suddenly em-ployees
have good reason to undermine one another’s
ratings, rather than to collaborate. “We spend perfor-mance
season getting battle ready,” explains one man-ager.
“Two weeks before my review, I begin to prepare
my attack.” In one celebrated case, Microsoft’s ranking
system (since discontinued) was blamed for the com-pany’s
decline in performance. Although Microsoft did
not apply ranking quotas to individual small teams, a
Vanity Fair article quoted a programming staff member
who clearly believed the company did, and who said,
“It leads to employees focusing on competing with each
other rather than competing with other companies.” A
similar unintended consequence occurs up the hierar-chy.
If employees feel that their bosses are comparing
them against their peers, they will not openly share in-formation
that might compromise their ranking.
5. Fairness. A CEB study showed that at least two-thirds
of the people paid as top performers are not actu-ally
seen by their peers as contributing the most to the
enterprise. Perhaps that’s why another survey, this one
from the research firm i4cp, found that 75 percent of
the respondents believed performance systems were not
fair. This represented a threefold increase since 2008,
when it was only 25 percent. Unfairness is perhaps the
biggest problem with forced ranking, because the sys-tem
is set up in a way that makes the decisions seem
more arbitrary every year. In most companies, after
several years of a forced ranking system, poor perform-ers
have already left. Everyone who remains performs
above expectations, almost by definition. But managers
are still forced to rank their subordinates on a 20/70/10
scale, and the bottom 10 percent are required to leave.
Thus, every year, at least one highly motivated, highly
capable employee is ranked as a bottom performer. This
ends with the employee exiting the company, and the
manager deeply frustrated.
Of course, all these factors reinforce one another in
ways that worsen the effect. For example, when people
feel that others were ranked more highly without merit,
and have no recourse to complain, the combined lack
of fairness and autonomy can generate a much stronger
emotional reaction than either would alone.
The result of all this? People feel unappreciated.
They become more conservative. They set their goals
low to ensure that they are seen as succeeding. They
retreat from candid conversations about development,
because the whole issue of progress and feedback is so
emotionally charged. The experience becomes one of
“ticking a box.” There is little of the type of conversa-tion
that actually promotes personal growth.
The rating system is particularly harsh on those
who conduct the appraisals. Supervisors feel pressure
to continue to show improvement, raising some people’s
rating over time. They also feel pressure to differentiate,
leading them to scapegoat some of their subordinates
feature organizations & people
8. strategy+business issue 76
7
Only one person feels neurologically
rewarded by the performance
management exercise: the senior
executive who oversees it.
as poor performers. Steven Rice, executive vice president
of human resources at the technology company Juniper
Networks, explains why it deliberately shut down its
forced ranking system: “The critical practice of letting
someone know where their performance authentically
stood became hijacked by artificially categorizing indi-viduals
into forced ratings in order to meet a fixed com-pensation
budget. The process lost its integrity. In the
majority of situations, it rendered the performance feed-back
incongruent with compensation and the rating.
Ironically, an HR process designed to drive fairness re-sulted
in mistrust.... Managers blamed it for tying their
hands and wrote the whole process off as unhelpful.”
Only one person typically feels neurologically re-warded
by the PM exercise. It’s not the high performer,
but the senior executive who oversees the ranking sys-tem.
The feelings of status, certainty, and autonomy
that occur when one is presiding over a forced rank-ing
system are intrinsically rewarding. Even the act of
categorizing information into groups, according to one
study, activates the reward center of the brain. That’s
why part of the education effort must include senior
executives, who may not see the problem because the
PM process reinforces their own cognitive reward while
diminishing rewards for everyone else.
Rethinking Evaluation
An increasing number of organizations have been listen-ing
to their employees’ complaints and taking a more
sophisticated approach to performance management.
They are replacing year-end appraisals and ratings with
in-depth conversations, often drawing on the myriad
data points now available about employee and company
performance, such as sales information, organizational
climate survey results, and employee engagement data.
A few firms have begun to experimentally shift away
from the conventional PM approach. The companies
that have joined this trend, either in pilots or full rollout,
include Adobe, Cargill, ConAgra, Gap, Intel, Juniper
Networks, Medtronic, and Sears. One noteworthy ex-ample
is Microsoft, which revamped its entire approach
in 2013. It now focuses evaluation on results that peo-ple
deliver together, leveraging and contributing to one
another, emphasizing continual learning and growth.
The company completely retired traditional PM tactics,
including ratings, distributions, and annual reviews.
How do these organizations transform their de-structive
performance ranking practices into a system
that can develop talent consistently and pay people fair-ly?
They do it by not throwing out the old approach
entirely. In the CEB study, goal setting was shown to
increase performance by 36 percent. Even feedback,
which is often destructive to learning, can be designed
in a productive way (see “The Problem with Feedback,”
next page). The structure of bonuses and the calculation
of salary can also be improved.
As firms make the courageous transition to a no-rating
system, they tend to choose one of two options.
The first is highly structured types of conversations re-garding
employee performance. The HR department
might lay out five or six topics to discuss in an annual
review, such as career growth, contribution, collabora-tion,
or innovation. The companies also provide guid-ance
on how to talk about each topic.
The second option is a guided conversation. Instead
of topics, the company provides a general framework
(and often some training for managers). The conversa-tion
focuses on the goals people set for themselves and
feature organizations & people
9. features title of the article
8
how they are progressing toward those goals, along with
their contribution, past and present, to the company.
In either a structured or a guided conversation, one
key element is to prime people—both the employee and
the boss—to induce a growth mind-set. This improves
how people listen to feedback, encourages them to set
stretch goals, makes it easier for them to put in extra ef-fort
toward a worthy project, and helps them learn from
positive role models.
You can hear the difference between the fixed
mind-set and the growth mind-set in the subtle nuances
of conversation, and managers can make a difference in
a company by deliberately choosing one kind of phras-ing
over another. For example, in giving feedback to
employees, the phrase “You did well; you must be tal-ented”
activates a fixed mind-set. Talent is perceived to
be innate and changeless. If the manager says instead,
“You did well; you must have worked hard on this” or
“I see you put everything you had into this,” a growth
mind-set is activated in the employee. The effort and
creativity that people bring to bear makes a difference.
The employee can also prime the boss. For example,
saying “I want to be the top performer” primes the fixed
mind-set. It implies there can be only one. By contrast,
saying “I want to take on challenges where I can learn
new things” primes the growth mind-set.
The Problem
with Feedback
Human resources profession-als
have long assumed that
most employees appreciate feed-back:
direct commentary about their
performance. It is taken for granted
that feedback motivates everyone to
perform, and that top performers find
it particularly useful. None of this is
true. Although those with a growth
mind-set react more positively to it
than everyone else, typical feedback
is not motivating, rewarding, or pleas-ant.
According to one study, everyone
hates it.
Psychologists at Kansas State,
Eastern Kentucky, and Texas A&M
universities asked 234 staffers at a
large university how they felt about
performance reviews they had
received. The respondents were split
up into three subgroups: those who
said they were considered competent,
those who avoided difficult tasks (to
avoid negative feedback), and those
who focused on developing and learn-ing
skills. The researchers expected
that the individuals motivated to learn
and develop skills were most likely
to take negative feedback in stride.
But it turned out that all three groups
found negative feedback demoraliz-ing,
and all to the same extent.
Managers who conduct per-formance
reviews typically do not
take into account the way people
feel about feedback. Even innocuous
remarks that carry praise can easily
be misconstrued as criticism. There’s
a biological reason for this. Until
they’re about 12 years old, human
beings obtain most of the resources
for survival from other people. As a
result, humans have well-developed
neural circuits for reading the social
environment. Having this type of
brain makes us highly attuned to
social threats and rewards.
Most feedback primes people
with a fixed mind-set—for example,
cuing them with statements like
“This is how you are.” That in itself
makes people less open-minded.
In another study, Jennifer Mangels,
now director of the Baruch College
Dynamic Learning Lab, and her
colleagues monitored brain activ-ity
in two groups of people while
the participants were asked some
common-knowledge questions
about history, literature, geography,
and other academic topics. The first
group were people with a fixed mind-set;
they had said that they believed
intelligence could not change. The
second group, with a growth mind-set,
had said they believed it could.
In each case, after the questions, the
groups received feedback—commen-tary
about their performance on the
quiz—and then they were given the
correct answers.
Compared to the growth mind-set
group, those with a fixed mind-set
had more activity in a frontal part
of the brain that is associated with
responses to negative sensations.
When they received the correct
answers, they also had a shorter
duration of the brain activity associ-ated
with long-term learning. Their
attention was more likely to move
elsewhere—perhaps to reacting to
the feedback. When they were given
a retest a short while later, the fixed
mind-set group also showed less
performance improvement, even
though they started out the study
performing equally well.
In short, there is reason to think
that most performance-related feed-back
from other people, even when
well intentioned, diminishes employ-ees’
ability to learn. To compensate,
it must be carefully designed to foster
a growth mind-set.
feature organizations & people
10. strategy+business issue 76
9
It’s worth the trouble to prime people for the growth
mind-set. In one study, priming a group of managers
that way consistently made them more confident in their
abilities and more likely to follow the example of a posi-tive
role model. That could be because the growth mind-set
allows people to follow others with no perceived loss
in status. Conversely, the fixed mind-set automatically
implies a zero-sum competition: If someone rises in sta-tus,
everyone else must fall. People holding that mind-set
are more likely to attack one another’s success instead
of focusing on their own development.
Another intriguing trend in productive perfor-mance
review conversations surprised us at first. Some
firms that got rid of most numerical ratings have left
one type of rating in place: the determination of wheth-er
someone is essentially “in or out” as a fit with the
company’s culture. At Juniper, this is defined as being
a “J-Player” or a “Non-J Player.” A J-Player is someone
who generally behaves according to Juniper’s values and
delivers reasonably good performance. Juniper clearly
and consistently explains which types of behavior result
in Non-J Player status and helps those employees fit in if
they choose to stay. More than 80 percent of the people
rated as Non-J Players have opted to leave the company;
they understood why they would never succeed there.
The success of this “in or out” rating system
seemed disturbing until we recognized why it was nec-essary.
Executives were reluctant to remove rankings,
but not for the reasons we thought they would be. They
didn’t care much about identifying problem performers.
The new system addressed that issue. They wanted to
weed out people who did not fit with their culture, and
who were thus holding back their departments and col-leagues.
We also saw another virtue: This simple system
decoupled the question “Should you stay here?” from
the question “How can you grow here?” This meant
that among those designated as J-Players, the conver-sation
could focus on the individual’s professional and
personal growth, without the anxiety of wondering
whether he or she would be ranked poorly.
A third trend we are seeing is the effort, at many
companies, to reframe the entire PM process as some-thing
else. “An engineer in our Bangalore Excellence
Center,” says Steven Rice of Juniper, “pointed out that
our performance management process was a violation
of our values, because the forced ratings didn’t enable
leaders to authentically provide feedback or truly trust
their judgment to administer rewards.” That led Rice
to realize that they could not fix the system piecemeal;
Juniper had to imagine a whole new kind of practice,
one that “delivers the benefits without the unintended
negative consequences.”
Since 2011, Juniper has not given ratings to em-ployees
or kept documents of ratings. It also eliminated
forced rankings. The new method focuses heavily on
regular quality conversations between managers and
employees, using the structured conversation model.
Overall, Juniper has seen participation and satisfaction
skyrocket among employees and managers. On the
semiannual day of evaluation (known as “Conversation
Day”), more than 88 percent of the participants reported
that their conversations were “helpful” or “very helpful.”
“We have increased differentiation and alignment of re-wards
against relative contribution,” Rice says. “Eighty-seven
percent of the employees reported that they were
willing to give extra discretionary effort, and 79 percent
believe they can do their best work at Juniper.”
At Gap, managers conduct monthly conversa-
feature organizations & people
11. features title of the article
10
The results of no-rating systems are
dramatically better than their rating and
ranking counterparts—in satisfaction,
retention, and engagement scores.
tions in a new performance management process called
“Grow, Perform, Succeed.” (Its abbreviation, GPS, is
also the company’s stock symbol.) By redesigning its
PM system and giving it a new name, the company re-positioned
the process as less of a threat. That in itself is
an important step to better conversations.
Sharon Arad, a Cargill executive, describes how the
company made this kind of shift after reviewing its PM
system a few years ago: “We found the system failed to
generate quality conversations, leaving employees with a
[ranking] that many viewed as a deficiency statement. In
the end, the ratings given were not a trustworthy indica-tor
of the actual status of performance or engagement.”
Many Cargill leaders wondered whether removing
the ratings would bring about more desirable results
and better conversations. So they set up a no-rating pi-lot
of several thousand employees for three years. Every
year Arad’s team compared the pilot group’s feedback to
that of a random sample of rated employees. “Overall,
90 percent of the no-rating pilot participants reported,
year after year, that their experience was positive,” Arad
says. This was in stark contrast to the feedback that
people normally gave about their performance manage-ment
experience. Finally, this year, Cargill adopted the
no-rating approach for its entire organization.
The results of no-rating systems are dramatically
better than their rating and ranking counterparts—in
satisfaction, retention, and engagement scores, which
have been shown to correlate to organizational per-formance.
We believe the number of companies op-erating
this way will increase dramatically, to become
the majority. It would be nice to think that eventually
the ideal of labeling people numerically will be seen as
a blip in the history of HR. Giving people a rating
might be a useful tool in a company with a lot of “fat,”
where it makes sense to shake people up and create
competition, but in many of today’s lean businesses that
demand a great deal from their employees, we need a
better model. We need to improve the quality of the
conversations we hold with workers. It’s time to kill
your performance ratings. +
Reprint No. 00275
Resources
Corporate Executive Board Corporate Leadership Council, “Break-through
Performance in the New Work Environment,” 2012: The CEB
study cited on fairness and goal setting.
Satoris Culbertson, Jaime B. Henning, and Stephanie C. Payne, “Perfor-mance
Appraisal Satisfaction: The Role of Feedback and Goal Orienta-tion,”
Journal of Personnel Psychology, 2013, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 189–95:
On the negative reactions to numerical rankings.
Carol S. Dweck, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success (Random House,
2006): Primary source on the fixed and growth mind-sets.
Kurt Eichenwald, “Microsoft’s Lost Decade,” Vanity Fair, Aug. 2012:
Includes reporting on the impact of forced ranking.
Leslie Kwoh, “ ‘Rank and Yank’ Retains Vocal Fans,” Wall Street Journal,
Jan. 31, 2012: Quotes executives who love, hate, and tolerate conven-tional
performance management.
Jennifer A. Mangels et al., “Why Do Beliefs about Intelligence Influ-ence
Learning Success? A Social Cognitive Neuroscience Model,” Social
Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Sept. 2006, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 75–86:
Source for “the problem with feedback.”
Elaine D. Pulakos et al., “Performance Management Can Be Fixed:
An On-the-Job Experiential Learning Approach for Complex Behavior
Change,” Corporate Leadership Council, 2014: Source of statistics about
dissatisfaction with performance management.
David Rock, “Managing with the Brain in Mind,” s+b, Autumn 2009:
Early publication of the full SCARF theory.
For more thought leadership on this topic, see the s+b website at:
strategy-business.com/organizations_and_people.
feature organizations & people