By to Axlie, Larry L. & Srikanthk
I need 100 things, but do I deserve to have all the things and contributing to them ....
The objective of the performance review is to develop the person, not to threaten self-esteem.
To abandon or abuse the performance appraisal process is a breach of business ethics. While some managers are skillful and genuine in reviewing an individuals performance, that does not appear to be typical. The ethical ramifications of performance review have caused managers and employees at all levels to become frustrated, cynical, and withdrawn.
* How do you want to grow ?
* Do you know what is your growth ?
* Compare and go down or Focus Target and Grow ...?
Most ethical questions arise from people relationships within the organization. Managers must realize that ethics is the process of deciding and acting. Recent survey results in one large organization indicate that only 26% of managers believe they are recognized and reinforced for their ethical decisions and behaviors. Employees have a big stake in the way managers evaluate and operate. Managers and nonsupervisory employees alike cite concern about "politics and lack of fair treatment, honesty, and truthfulness" in connection with the performance review.
Experience has clearly indicated that the handling of performance review sessions is usually far more critical than the decision made or information conveyed in the session. Frequently, when unsuccessful candidates for promotions are notified of the decision that someone else has been selected they are not told why. Often they are not told anything, usually because the managers or supervisors do not feel equipped or skillful enough to explain the reasons in a systematic and rational way.
Sometimes, major miscommunications occur in performance review sessions due to basic differences in ethical orientation. For example, the reviewer may say, "That report is a requirement, and we need to follow the rules of the organization." The person being reviewed may reply, "I make a significant contribution to this organization, and I don't have time to prepare reports that no one looks at. Judge me on what I accomplish." What is going on here? The reviewer is concerned with decisions and actions that conform to basic principles and rules (adherence). The employee appears to be oriented toward the outcome - the ends justify the means (results). They are talking on two different, nonconnecting planes. Unless the employee and the reviewer are successful in negotiating an ethical balance, each may view the other as taking unfair shots - and the battleground will be the performance review process.
The overall objective of high-ethics performance review should be to provide an honest assessment of performance and to mutually develop a plan to improve the individual's effectiveness. That requires telling people where they stand and being straight with them. It is important to keep the following points in mind:
* What are the primary objectives of the organization - i.e., what is the organization's purpose?
* What is valued most - adherence or results?
* How is this person expected to contribute to the organization?
* What is this person's position on the team?
* How well does he or she fill that position?
If you really want to know what concerns the individual, ask the following types of questions:
* What results do you expect from this performance review session?
* What is your biggest frustration?
* How do you feel about your department and the organization?
* What do you want to accomplish?
* How do you want to spend your time?
Many effective, high-ethics managers invite such input. They strive to help the person see how his or her contribution results in mutually beneficial outcomes. However, when performance review sessions are conducted, there is always the risk that the person being reviewed may conclude that he or she has no future with the organization and opt to leave. If this is an accurate perception, based upon an honest exchange of information, the timing of the separation could be painful, but the parting would probably be inevitable and in the best interests of both. There is a fundamental decision managers must make with respect to performance review, i.e., is the unstated outcome effective communication or minimum compliance?
Some managers and supervisors feel that being "legal" in a performance review is enough. If they comply with the rules and regulations and are careful about their documentation, they feel that they are secure and have a defensible position. However, being "legal" does not always equate to being "ethical." Simply stated, being legal is not enough. It is entirely possible to comply with the ritual and surface requirements of performance review without injecting the proper spirit into the process, which is to enable the individual to recognize and strive for performance improvement in specified areas. Clarity and mutuality of expectations are critical to success, personal satisfaction, and high performance. To achieve such an outcome requires that some managers and supervisors avoid the great cop-out of simply going through the motions.
A perfunctory performance review is an ethical strikeout - without taking a swing. If the person being reviewed feels ignored, his or her feelings of personal worth will suffer. In the worst scenario, low-ethics managers use the performance review process as a form of "forced humility" for individuals reporting to them. This is inherently wrong and will almost inevitably lead to the loss of the best people in the organization. Performance appraisal must be recognized and treated as an ethical issue of high payoff and peril. Far too often, the signal sent to the individual is one of three:
1. "We are only doing this review because we have to."
2. "You had better shape up or ship out."
3. "We want you to continue to work hard and develop new programs and processes - but advancement potential is limited."
The effect on self-esteem is the critical issue. A blow to the self-worth of an individual can be damaging to that person as well as to the overall morale of the organization. When low-ethics managers use retribution to coerce behavior, employees may respond out of fear. This would hardly be described as a trust-based and ethical business climate. If employees feel they have been neglected or not treated fairly, feelings of personal worth are often threatened. This may result in organizational strife in which individuals attempt to gain self-esteem or at least get even with those who have caused these very painful feelings and emotions.
When a performance review helps the individual recognize that his or her objectives are closely aligned with the organization's, the individual is more likely to perform at a higher level and the organization is less likely to lose a valuable employee. The objective of the performance review is to develop the person, not to threaten self-esteem. Treatment of people is the most fundamental ethical issue. Performance review is a matter of ethics.
Thanks to Axline, Larry L
No comments:
Post a Comment