Performance Management 2.0 - HRDergi Presentation
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•689 views
The document summarizes a presentation on performance management 2.0. It discusses three dynamics of performance: personal, objective, and inclusive. It outlines the SCARF model for understanding how social threats and rewards impact motivation. It also discusses using the Birkman method to understand individual drivers and how two people's interactions can meet or not meet needs and interests. The presentation aims to address common issues with performance management like it being a waste of time and inaccurate. It promotes the idea that better individual engagement leads to better organizational performance.
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (16)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Performance Management 2.0 - HRDergi Presentation
Similar to Performance Management 2.0 - HRDergi Presentation (20)
More from Pivotal Practices Consulting LLC
More from Pivotal Practices Consulting LLC (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (10)
Performance Management 2.0 - HRDergi Presentation
- 1. Performance Management 2.0 Taking Performance Management to the Next Level HRdergi Performans, Ücret ve Ödül Yönetimi Zirvesi 12 Kasim 2014 Istanbul Marriott Hotel Asia Patrina M. Clark, President, Pivotal Practices Consulting LLC
- 3. Session Overview • Three dynamics of performance – personal, objective, inclusive • People considerations – SCARF & Birkman • Process considerations • Issues, issues, and more issues • Strategic framework • Three key ideas Copyright 2014 Pivotal Practices Consulting LLC – All Rights Reserved
- 4. Personal | Inclusive | Objective
- 6. Three Central Ideas •Brain treats perceived social threats like physical threats. •Personal effectiveness is reduced by threat and increased by reward. •Threat response more intense and more common than reward response. Copyright 2014 Pivotal Practices Consulting LLC – All Rights Reserved
- 7. S-C-A-R-F •Status – relative importance to others •Certainty – ability to predict future •Autonomy – sense of control •Relatedness – sense of safety with others •Fairness – perception of fair exchange Copyright 2014 Pivotal Practices Consulting LLC – All Rights Reserved
- 8. Partner Share Which Is Your Primary Driver? S – C – A – R – F
- 9. S-C-A-R-F •Status – relative importance to others •Certainty – ability to predict future •Autonomy – sense of control •Relatedness – sense of safety with others •Fairness – perception of fair exchange Copyright 2014 Pivotal Practices Consulting LLC – All Rights Reserved
- 10. behavior motivation Usual Needs Interests MET Stress UNMET
- 11. Basic Example: B = f (P/E) “Lewin’s Equation” Two people engage in a conversation. One person’s external behavior (Usual or Stress Behavior) affects the other person’s internal expectations (Needs and Interests). B Usual (Stress) P Needs Interests B Usual (Stress) P Needs Interests Needs/Interests get met = motivated/engaged (Usual) Needs/Interests do not get met = demotivated/disengaged (Stress) Copyright © 2013 Birkman International, Inc. Houston, Texas. All rights reserved.
- 12. Performance management is the systematic process by which an agency involves its employees, as individuals and members of a group, in improving organizational effectiveness in the accomplishment of agency mission and goals. U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
- 14. Partner Share Rank Your Organization 1 10 The Worst The Best
- 15. Issues, Issues, Issues . . . Dissatisfied Inaccurate Waste of Time 80% 57% 45% (1) Reuters 2009; (2) Globoforce 2013 (3) CBS Interactive 2014
- 16. Performance Management Gets Social Dr. Edie L. Goldberg Vol. 39, No. 8
- 17. Partner Share Share an example of how your company addressed one of these issues.
- 20. Three Key Ideas • Better Individual Engagement = Better Individual Performance • Better Individual Performance = Better Team Performance • Better Team Performance = Better Organizational Performance
- 21. Partner Share What is the most impactful idea from today’s session?
- 23. Teşekkür ederim
Editor's Notes
- I have had the most wonderful time visiting Istanbul. I took tours three days in a row, and I still feel like there are many things to see. While on tour Sunday, I had a conversation with a gentleman from Scotland and told him I’d be speaking with you today. He asked me what I was going to be speaking about. When I told him performance management, he rolled his eyes back so far that I worried he was going to topple over. And, after speaking with him for a few minutes more, I think he felt convinced that there are ways to manage the process better so that even if the process is not beloved, neither is it loathed.
- The performance management process is intended to reflect to an employee how his or her performance is perceived by the organization. In organizations that do performance management well, the process works like a wonderful clear mirror that allows the employee to see him or herself accurately and objectively. In other organizations, the mirror is cloudy and makes it difficult for employees to have a clear picture of how his or her performance is contributing to the organization. And, in the worst cases, the mirror is like one of those funny mirrors you see at carnival, where the reflection is totally distorted and you can barely recognize yourself. I’d like to spend the next 45 minutes or so discussing some ideas for how the performance management process can more closely be like the clear mirror rather than the carnival mirror. I invite you to take notes on the handout you have.
- My primary objective for our time together is for each of you to leave having learned something new or developed one idea for improving performance management in your organizations. The objectives on this slide provide a general outline of how we’ll spend our time together. First, I’ll share with you what I believe to be three important dynamics of performance – personal, objective, and inclusive. I’ll then share with you two models that relevant to the personal and social dynamics of performance. One is a behavioral model, called the Birkman Method. The other is a motivational model that uses the acronym S-C-A-R-F, where each letter represents a different motivation. We’ll then shift our attention to the process. I’ll share a general overview and some of the issues with the most common process. I’ll then share with some ideas for improving the process and the three pillars of a great system.
- I hope everyone recognizes this photo of the 2002 Turkey national football team. That year was exceptional for the team because they finished in the top three at the World Cup that year. Football is an excellent tool for discussing the three dynamics of performance I mentioned to you – personal, objective, and inclusive. From a personal perspective, each member of the team has to be self-motivated. The research tells us that no one person can motivate another person. Motivation must come from within. This is where the objective and inclusive dynamics are important. When a person feels good about where he or she works, his or her supervisor, and the job that has to be done, performance is better. From an objective perspective, the rules of the game are very clear. Each player knows his role on the team and what he or she is expected to do to secure the victory. In conducting my research fro my talk with you today, I learned that there are 17 universal rules for football. This means that wherever a player goes in the world, he has a set of clear objectives for his performance. Finally, from an inclusive perspective, each player recognizes that he or she can not win the game alone. It requires a team effort. The players also realize that even as a team, they are a part of a much bigger organization. There is the team manager, other players in the league, the referees, the vendors at the stadium, and the wonderful fans. The better all of these elements work together, the better each individual feels about being a part of the team and the better the team performs. One player can really impact the entire team. The player may not like his team mates or resent the fact that he was traded to another team, so his performance suffers. Or, the player may have a bad relationship with the coach or even the fans. And, this is the same in our organizations.
- People are at the heart of this. And, while we endeavor to ensure our performance management process is fair, consistent and objective, it is still mostly a very subjective process influenced by the individual biases and motivations of the people involved in the process. How many of you are familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs? It is perhaps one of the most famous models of human motivation. The model you see here is a newer brain-based model of human motivation developed by David Rock of the Neuro Leadership Institute. The SCARF model (Rock, 2008) is a summary of important discoveries from neuroscience about the way people interact socially. The model is made up of Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness. These five domains have been shown in many studies to activate the same reward circuitry that physical rewards activate, like money, and the same threat circuitry that physical threats, like pain, activate (Rock, 2009b). Understanding that these five domains as primary needs helps individuals and leaders better navigate the social world in the workplace (Rock, 2009b). Understanding the five domains The SCARF model involves five domains of human social experience: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness. Status is about relative importance to others. Certainty concerns being able to predict the future. Autonomy provides a sense of control over events. Relatedness is a sense of safety with others - of friend rather than foe. Fairness is a perception of fair exchanges between people. These five domains activate either the 'primary reward' or 'primary threat' circuitry (and associated networks) of the brain. For example, a perceived threat to one's status activates similar brain networks to a threat to one's life. In the same way, a perceived increase in fairness activates the same reward circuitry as receiving a monetary reward. The model enables people to more easily remember, recognize, and potentially modify the core social domains that drive human behavior. The performance management process is a likely threat trigger for almost everyone because it can impact each of these elements in a way that feels negative – both to employees and managers.
- The model is built on three central ideas: The brain treats many social threats and rewards with the same intensity as physical threats and rewards (Lieberman, & Eisenberger, 2009). The capacity to make decisions, solve problems and collaborate with others is generally reduced by a threat response and increased under a reward response (Elliot, 2008). The threat response is more intense and more common and often needs to be carefully minimized in social interactions (Baumeister et al, 2001).
- Status is about relative importance to others. Certainty concerns being able to predict the future. Autonomy provides a sense of control over events. Relatedness is a sense of safety with others - of friend rather than foe. Fairness is a perception of fair exchanges between people.
- 5 minutes
- Status is about relative importance to others. Certainty concerns being able to predict the future. Autonomy provides a sense of control over events. Relatedness is a sense of safety with others - of friend rather than foe. Fairness is a perception of fair exchanges between people.
- Status – agency mission and goals – roles and responsibilities Certainty – agency mission and goals, systematic process Autonomy – improving organizational effectiveness Relatedness – involving employees Fairness – involving employees
- 5 minutes
- 4 out of 5 US workers are dissatisfied with their job performance reviews 57% of workers say annual performance reviews inaccurate 45% think performance reviews are a waste of time
- The 10 issues tie directly to the three aspects of performance I shared with you earlier. From the personal perspective, employees want more engagement with their supervisor about their performance. Talking about performance once or twice is just not enough. That ties directly into the next set of issues around subjectivity. In more and more organizations, employees are working for multiple managers, and in many instances, they end up with different managers at the end of the review process. And, this then ties directly to the social aspects of performance. Employees want multiple perspectives on how they are doing. In this era of instant feedback through social media sites such as Facebook and Instagram, we are accustomed to immediate feedback – and from lots of different people. Employees are increasingly less interested in a single manager’s perspective about their performance than they are from their colleagues and customers.
- 5 minutes
- 5 minutes