![Manufacturing Excellence Movement [MEM]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoWG4rWcA776OkV-9Exu1p5c7-6OizJ-WL7BdcY3Hkf2iNLerYaupD0k1d2ICYXI5e70jY_wsb4XUbfwAzjWeFW57LqR4mzQEfyOkBUheebOGtS-51zaye3z8Ffg0osA9u1LK5GfbkQI0/s1600/banner02.jpg)
The following are the pain areas and challenges faced by Jainam Share Consultants as shared by Chiragbhai for comments, thoughts, suggestions and discussion between the group. This is an extremely good beginning and i request everyone to participate with their thoughts and also their own challenges.
1. Performance Management System: -
1. Performance Management System: -
As
per our current system-
- We are giving KRAs with KPI to all our managers in the beginning of the year. All KRAs has its weightage as per its importance.
- Every quarterly review is there between Top management & Managers in presence of HR.On review meeting, new KRAs are given for next quarter. Feedback related to performance is given at the time of review meeting.
- At the end of the year average % of achievement is given to manager by averaging all 4 quarter.
In
above system, we are facing following challenges: -
·
Many times Manager do work which is not in
his KRAs but which is important. How to give impact that type of work in his
performance.
·
Most of the time, different reviewer (we
have four reviewer) measure performance in different way ( for example: one
reviewer is strict and one is liberal in same performance)
·
Many times it is difficult to take judgment
as some part of the KRAs are not achieved due to outside
circumstances.
·
How much importance should we give to
routine work and new initiative in PMS. (If we give importance to new
initiative which is most of the time difficult to achieve and if the manager is
not able to achieve the same, system indicate that he had not performed where
someone is not given new task, complete his routine work then system indicate
he is performed, Which actually not reflecting the right picture.)
·
As PMS is not reflecting the right picture
of performer, so major challenge is how to give increment at the end of the
year? we always have too much stress at that time.
2. Not following company's policies and systems by performers. How
to deal with performer’s attitude issues.
3. How to change a system which is in place from last some years
and has undue advantage to some of the managers? The fear is to have resistance
from their side.
Dear Chiragbhai, based on my experience, the KRA/KPI system is a good mode of communicating the expectations that an organization has from the team and not necessarily a scientific performance monitoring tool. Not every point in the KRA can be SMART or objective and we need to provide for some subjective elements also in the same, for eg. New initiatives taken (to be rated on a scale of 1-5 by the HOD). Moreover, setting the KRAs once a year does not work in a dynamic environment and the same should be done preferably quarterly. Moreover, the expectations from the KRA system should be not very high since it cannot be 100% perfect. However, it surely adds value and hence it should be followed. There could be a safety net (some min amount guaranteed irrespective of achievement of KRAs) to ensure there is no major dissatisfaction in the team.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your second point, i have started firmly believing that the final results or performance generated by an employee is not much to do with his skill set or external motivation or KRA system or anything else but mainly to do with him "passion" for the work he is doing. Hence, in our performance appraisal systems, if we can somehow measure the "passion" of a person, it can really help us to identify good performers.
Regarding the 3rd point, i firmly believe that change is a must irrespective of the resistance. If we firmly believe in something, we should not worry about resistance. Normally, there is a lot of insecurity within us with questions such as "what if the person does not like or what if he leaves ". In this regards, i learnt a few very important lessons during last 2-3 months which were eye openers. I read "The Mckinsey Way" wherein the primary assumption with which they recruit and train their people is that the person will not stay with them for more than 2-3 years. This is because they recruit best talent from leading colleges and most of the joinees want to get experience in Mckinsey before doing anything else. I recently read an article in ET that Axis Bank and ICICI bank wants to offer VRS to executives of over 40 years of age in order to be more lean, cost efficient and innovative ! Again, i see a lot of corporates where job rotations are really a part of life and they do not take people leaving as a big emotional failure. I think, as we grow and scale up, it is very important to understand this aspect since only then we can really feel secured enough to take bold steps without worrying what the employees will think. I am not trying to suggest that their opinion should be disregarded or that people should not be respected or anything of that sort. But just trying to make a point that if we sincerely believe in anything, we would and we can make it happen.
I hope my views offer you some help in facing your pain areas. These points are similar to what we face in our organization and probably, these are the same as faced by any other organization anywhere in the world.
An interesting article on "Should You Hire Based on Accomplishments, or Potential?"
ReplyDelete“Potential” is a word recruiting analysts use to describe job candidates who have the talent to become top performers but who aren’t guaranteed to make full use of their abilities.
So what does a company do?
Hire an unproven talent who might be the next Steve Jobs, or select an impressive candidate whose potential is fulfilled and who is essentially risk-free? Surely a company would make the safest of hiring decisions and choose a proven performer. Or would it?
Will an investment in potential pay off?
According to a 2012 study by researchers at Stanford University and the Harvard Business School, companies favor candidates who have potential over applicants who have translated their potential into accomplishments.
In the study, a panel of evaluators was asked to predict who would perform better in a leadership role: a candidate with two years of relevant experience who scored well on a leadership achievement test, or a candidate with no experience who scored well on a leadership potential exam. Most evaluators chose the second candidate.
The perception that potential is more valuable than accomplishment leads companies to hire candidates whose greatest attribute is an air of promise instead of candidates whose resumes read like a hiring and staffing manager’s wish list.
For employers, it’s a bit like investing in lottery tickets instead of municipal bonds. The only question is whether the investment pays off.
For a company named Fishbowl, it certainly has.
The story of Fishbowl
Recently featured in Forbes, Fishbowl – a provider of software solutions for manufacturing, distribution and asset tracking since 2001 – is a prime example of how basing hiring decisions on potential can pay off big time.
Initially, the goal of Fishbowl’s recruiting team was to attract top talent, but they soon found that it wasn’t easy to lure the best performers away from established companies. So, instead of wasting time fishing for big catches, they began targeting candidates whose potential could make them the top performers of tomorrow. Essentially, they believed that compelling personal qualities could make up for imperfect resumes.
Their success isn’t the result of lucky hiring decisions. Instead, the company went prospecting for certain traits. The recruiters believed that a star candidate would display qualities such as loyalty, commitment, trust, respect, courage and gratitude, among others.
Today, rather than targeting people whose accomplishments make them perfect for the job, Fishbowl continues to look for candidates who possess high potential and attractive intangibles. In a way, employees are created, not hired.
Considering that Fishbowl has grown by 70 percent over the last three years and has won awards for project and management quality, it’s safe to say that this hiring solution turned out to be a winning strategy.
Psychology in perspective
According to Heidi Grant Halvorson – a motivational psychologist and author of the book Succeed: How We Can Reach Our Goals – individuals who possess potential are more attractive than individuals whose potential is already fulfilled. “The potential for success, as opposed to actual success,” she says, “is more interesting because it is less certain.”
In other words, as illogical as it may seem, uncertainty has a hidden value – and our brains recognize it. Still, as Halvorson says, candidates who possess potential must have positive traits to go along with it, otherwise their attractiveness to hiring and staffing managers diminishes.
Values-based recruitment helps companies target candidates who possess positive traits that predict success. Considering that 50 percent of U.S. companies struggle to find qualified candidates using values-based recruiting to target workers who have high potential makes perfect sense. If a company has difficulty finding ideal candidates, it should reevaluate its hiring decisions and consider targeting those who have the potential to become ideal.