On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, Debbie Broome wrote:
> I have always felt intuitively uncomfortable with *formalized* 360
> evaluations and peer reviews. I am also uncomfortable with the standard
> formal evaluation (the one I am typically required to conduct with the
> people who work (according to the organization chart) for me. I think
> conversations and feedback between employees and supervisors is very
> important, particularly in cases where as managers and supervisors we need
> to know what we can do better to support employees in getting the job done
> (usually it's get out of the way, which is OK).
I agree with what you have said. Having consulted on a large project to
develop an organization wide evaluation system, I came to a few
conclusions. Perhaps the most interesting one is that we need to be clear
that appraisals need to meet the needs of the consumers of them, and that
the only sensible primary consumers need to be the employees. So, one
thing I did, in the aftermath of the chaos of what I think was a failed
project, was to define the notion of Effectiveness Enhancement Systems,
whose main tenet is that the STAFF define how appraisals are done, and
that staff can choose or request virtually any process on an individual
basis, that will help them improve performance. It's a bit more
complicated then that but that's the gist.
I put together a 50+ page book on the topic (this isn't a plug), outlining
the failures of conventional methods of appraisal. My feeling on any
appraisal system (360 or other) is that it needs to be chosen by staff.
> The presenters cited a study on cognition, the name of
> which I do not recall at this time, that basically said that our thinking
> about a situation is only impacted by 20% to things occuring in our
> environment, outside of us. The other 80% of our thinking comes from our
> own paradigms (mental models). I
I think such statements are nonsensical, and I know no cognitive scientist
that would make them. That said, even if it is true and has meaning, would
it not make sense to have staff select the type of information they can
make use of within whatever mental models they have?
> of why the evaluation process is so intuitively uncomfortable. Is anyone
> familar with this study? I would like to learn more about these concepts.
> Also, does any one have any thoughts on how our mental models relate,
> impede, help, the performance evaluation process? Why do we do them???
I should post some of our work on our website, but I think two areas might
be interesting; locus of control, and attribution.
Robert Bacal - CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
Internet Address - dbt359@freenet.mb.ca
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. (204) 888-9290
Join us at our Resource Centre at: http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359
--Robert Bacal <dbt359@freenet.mb.ca>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>