One of the things that generates the most problems and anecdotes has to do with the size of each measurement instrument.
You may be laughing with the subject, but in companies there are not always equal measurement standards.
Whether it is because we are human or because we have different perspectives on the different issues that permeate our daily lives, what is certain is that this situation generates many misunderstandings.
The question is:
“ Does the team knows its standards?”
Do you know how it will be measured and evaluated against the function it performs?
From our experience in Executive Coaching, a theme common to some executives I am working with personally has recently emerged.
Some of them are in companies that have been integrated in international groups, where sometimes the standards of performance and measurement are very different from national companies.
In one particular case, performance evaluations were something that was done a little above the knee. Something that people saw as an “obligation”, not to mention another name, that had to be done every year, but which did not bring much value to departments or teams.
Some managers did it one way, others another, and in the end there was a common form that was delivered by everyone.
Of course, without much care in harmonizing methods, each manager ended up evaluating according to the “size of his tape measure”.
The problem becomes even more apparent when some organizations are restructuring teams to save costs or reduce the number of people they have to do without.
You might think, but isn’t it normal for every leader to have their “metrics”?
Yes and no.
Yes, because there is an aspect to each person’s personality. It would be crazy to say that it’s possible to leave out all the personal factors of the evaluation.
No, because the leader should try to make clear the rules of assessment he uses – what the criteria are, how someone working with him can go up or down his assessment scale.
You may wonder, but isn’t this basic?
It is basic, but in my opinion it is also very helpful that a criterion is not well-defined.
Sometimes, when there is no transparency in the leadership process, one of the things that lies beneath the surface is precisely the true nature of the assessment criteria.
But where to start?
Take a sheet of paper.
Describe first the function and what you want from it.
Then try to define five key areas of results. They may be more, but from experience all five covers at least the most important aspects.
These key result areas should be critical areas of performance that can even be directly linked to the performance and success of the role.
Now take your team and evaluate it against that scale.
So far nothing new, sometimes even something like this already exists in the organisation. But sometimes what exists is inadequate and is merely a formality that has to be accomplished annually.
What we propose here is that you define five criteria that are easy for everyone to read and understand.
We also propose that they should be really, but really specific to your department because, as we know, this is not always the case.
If you want to see this as another set of five points to add to the standard assessment.
Now comes the most difficult.
Sit down with each member of your team and explain these evaluation criteria clearly. But do so until there is really no doubt as to how people will be evaluated.
This week take a moment to think:
“Do your people know the size of my tape measure?”
Also published on Medium.