1

New York State Human Resources Conference,

2001

Created By Robert Bacal, M.A.

Bacal & Associates

252 Cathcart St., Winnipeg, Mb. Canada, R3R 0S2

www.work911.com

rbacal@escape.ca

2

Negotiation-Based Performance Management

A response to the general failure of performance management and appraisal schemes when applied to real people in real jobs.

3

What’s Happening Out “There”

Almost nobody assesses whether their system is worth the cost.

Broken Glass Syndrome HR ends up as the P.A. police. Increased move to technology that

makes it easy to appear to be doing something useful.

Movement away from the fundamental part of P.M – real communication.

4

A Conclusion

The people that need to understand and use performance management (employees & managers:– Do not perceive it as adding value– Do not use it in ways that make it add

value– Feel they are saddled with a useless

process– Tend to do least amount of work

possible– However, IN SOME PLACES IT

WORKS LIKE CRAZY

5

A Definition That Promotes Thinking Shift

Performance Management– An ongoing communication process,

undertaken in partnership, between employee and his or her immediate supervisor with the goals of:

Identifying barriers to performance whatever the source.

Working together to remove those barriers to create continuous improvement.

6

Principles of Negotiation-Based Performance Management 1

Is “customer centered” where customers are managers and employees.

Allows “customers” to choose tools that meet their needs within a very flexible set of corporate requirements.

HR role shifts from police to enabler, providing TOOLS.

7

Principles of Negotiation-Based Performance Management 2

As a system, developed by cascading from the top of the organization (ideally).

However it can work on a more local level without the support of the organization or even HR (which is why some managers make almost anything work)

8

How It Differs?

Manager & employee can choose formats.

HR focuses on education and assistance rather than policing.

Managers held accountable by their immediate “boss”

One size fits all

HR as police

No real accountability

9

How It Differs?

Manager & employee own the process.

System developed bottom up.

System implemented top down.

HR owns the process.

System developed top down or HR across

Usually no coherent implementation

10

Bottom Line

We can continue a monolithic one size fits all approach that is perceived by the managers and employees as largely irrelevant.

We can continue as is to promote what we believe is “consistency” under the illusion that the information we get means something.

11

OR…

We can acknowledge that managers and employees must be active participants in designing and using processes that meet THEIR needs.

We can be much better at balancing the needs of company, HR, managers and employees with more flexible systems.

12

Steps In Designing A System 1

Determine what exact purposes the system must achieve for the organization Usually HR + Execs.

Define the constraints specifying the absolute bottom-line corporate requirements to meet that need (consider tools, frequency, etc.)

Consult with exec., managers, supervisors, employees on what their needs (purposes) are, plus suggestions for tools.

13

Steps In Designing A System 2

Based on previous steps, create a barebones policy stating minimum requirements + a tool kit for users.

Review with all parties and modify. Educate all parties on philosophy

(very important), purposes, tools, expectations.

Implementation commences with top management using process with their subordinates and preparing them for the process.