Performance appraisals have come in for some serious criticism recently. And yet the books and articles written which criticise simply advocate performance appraisal by another name – or rather a collection of names. Here's an analysis of the issues.
This article explores effective staff development showcasing a simple but effective competency framework model that can be used by any firm of any size and complexity to explore their competence gap. To understand competence gap you need to know what competencies you have now, what you need for the future, and how you are going to develop your people to bridge the gap.
Hiring an apprentice can be more daunting that hiring an experienced worker. Get it wrong and you’ve the management costs and hassle to correct your mistake. But get it right and you’ve have engaged a future high performer. But on what basis do you select your apprentice? The career decisiveness of a young person predicts how well he or she will perform in a job after apprenticeship.
Commitment matters. If managers can get all staff to be committed, other management and leadership activities become possible. Without committed staff, there’s little the manager can do to achieve goals and the firm will just drift. This paper describes commitment and outlines research that shows what managers can do to achieve commitment. The research shows that there is correlation between the idiosyncratic granting of developmental opportunities and affective commitment in those benefitting.
Staff development is the act of persuading a member of staff to change – to change their skills, knowledge or behaviours – towards that wanted. That persuasion comes by way of training, mentoring or coaching. Staff have existing competencies and behaviours. The difference between what’s needed and what’s available today is what any development must focus on.
Many managers deliberately mix internal and external recruitment in the hope of selecting the best person for the job from as large a pool as possible. Simply, consider internals first, in isolation. If any internal can do the job – judged by a fixed bar - they go forward with an internals-only contest. Because any one has the ability to excel, a variable bar selection can be used to rank them. Anything else is just wrong, damaging and here’s why.
It’s only when managers come to rely on a job description at some point of impending opportunity or catastrophe that the importance of that simple document becomes apparent. Coupled with that, most JDs are just a list of duties and measuring performance against them is impossible. Here's guidance on fixing that.