To: Jens Erik Hoverby
>From one Dane to another. Your posting included the following: "If you
yourself know of any tools for self analysis or benchmarking the for
dimensions just mentioned or other LO related areas, please give me a
short notice or call. There could be basis for coperation."
It appears that our efforts are focused in a somewhat parallel direction.
I have been working on an issue similar to your question about manager's
and employees assessing competency development. I've learned that the
greatest defficiency is more on the lack of understanding expectations and
the lack of leadership support than it is on the lack of any kind of
competency development. In studying the results of over 80,000
participants in supervisory training, I discovered four problem conditions
that inhibit the development of competent performance. These four
conditions also cause adversarial feelings and interactions between
supervisors and their subordinates. The four are:
1. Subordinates didn't understand what responsibilities supervisors
expected of them and they didn't have enough support to achieve that which
supervisors expected of them. I found that this condition caused 89% of
the difficulties b etween supervisors and subordinates.
2. Subordinates didn't have enough knowledge or skill to accomplish what
they understood was expected of them. This condition caused 9.5 % of the
difficulties between supervisors and subordinates. This is the only
problem condition for which education or training contributes to
competency improvement. But my investigations show that education and
training are used as the method to improve competency almost 100% of the
time.
3. Subordinates were incapable, mentally or physically, of accomplishing
supervisors' expectations. This condition caused 0.5% of the difficulties.
4. Subordinates had committed to specific and measurable job
responsibility expectations, had support, knowledge, and skill and were
capable of accomplishing what their supervisors expected of them. But for
reasons of their choice, they did not accomplish their commitments. This
condition caused 1% of the difficulties.
These problem conditions were verified to exist in all kinds and sizes of
organizations.There appears to be similarities in these four to your four
points. My 25 years of experience in consulting in supervisor-subordinated
relationship improvement is that assessment suffers from being a reactive
process. It is reactive in the sense that assessments rarely compare
actual performance, attitudes, feelings, and etcetera with any preagreed
upon commitments for performance, attitudes, feelings and etcetera. This
is because supervisors and their subordinates rarely discuss their
expectations for measurable leadership support and measurable subordinate
job responsibilities.
Moreover, if you look at the four problem conditions for the purpose of
trying to resolve them, supervisors are in the best postion for the first
three (causes of difficulties 99% of the time) to take the initiative to
correct the conditions. Yet in ordinary work relationships and in ordinary
assessments, the reactive assumption is that subordinates are "at fault"
99% of the time for performance shortcomings, the exact opposite of
reality. This is a source of enormous anxiety, antagonism, waste, human
safety hazards, and egg-on-the-face of HR staff and consultants who
facilitate performance improvement programs that don't live up to
expectations.
I have a self published 19 module "Advanced Work Team Leadership
Practices" program that installs a system of procedures for developing
partnership agreements between supervisors and subordinates. They include
agreement on their organization's mission, their two person team mission
in support of the organization mission, their individual personal
missions, measurable leadership support responsibilities, measurable
subordinate job responsibilities, regular team achievement assessments
(comparing perceptions of actual achievement with agreed upon achievement
of responsibilities), and specific measurable performance improvement
plans for both supervisor and subordinate responsibilities. It's a
comprehensive Human Resources Guidancne syste.
I'm quite sure that supervisors and subordinates working out these
agreements and living by them, aims at the same long term result that your
described effort is aimed at and could contribute something of value to
your effort. In reference to your comment, "There could be basis for
cooperation," I would like to explore a cooperative effort and look
forward to your response to this consideration.
Duke Nielsen
Dukington@aol.com
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>