Ithuta JV

Source: TenStep Tom Mochal

Individual Performance Should Be Linked to Project Results

Have you ever been on a project that missed all of its commitments for cost, schedule, and quality? Although it may seem counter intuitive, there are a number of projects that have major problems, even some that are canceled, on which the team members all receive great reviews and the project manager is promoted.

...

In the past, the review process in many companies was based on overall effort and knowledge level. That is, if you were very knowledgeable in technology and the business, and if you worked hard, you tended to be rewarded with good reviews every year. On the surface, this seems fine, right?

It is fine up to a point, but these criteria don’t adequately tie actual job performance to your performance review. The review process should be based on performance against the expectations of the job description, performance against objectives, and performance against expectations.

More and more, companies are reviewing people against performance criteria instead of effort. That way, you don’t end up in a position where a project fails miserably, yet all the participants receive above-average reviews. There are not many problem projects where the project team was not partially, if not totally, responsible.

Consider a project where everyone on the team tried hard, but the results weren’t successful. In the past, management might have brushed this all under the rug and given everyone good reviews to reflect their hard work and get them pumped up about the next assignments.

However, that’s not how things are done today. Hard work is something that should be applauded and recognized, but missed deadlines should also be recognized. The bottom line is that individual contributions—and the project results—should be factored into the performance feedback. Team leaders should be recognized for their contributions, but also held accountable for the project results. Make sure that the overall project results, good and bad, are factored into personal performance evaluations.

Getting Better from Poor Performers

In organizations where poor performers are (involuntarily) allowed to thrive, the levels of productivity and morale take deep plunges, and turnover increases. When organizations impose no checks on performance, top performers leave because they want to avoid associating with a management that tolerates mediocrity. With only mediocre employees staying on, the work culture evolves to accommodate mediocrity. This has a damaging, long-term effect on productivity and, even worse, the organization’s reputation.
Recognize the culprit. The only good thing about poor performers is that they are easily identifiable! They arrive late, leave early, miss deadlines and find excuses for their inconsistencies. Their colleagues are left to make up for their performance
Be well armed! While some organizations realize the importance of addressing this potentially damaging problem, others ignore it. Most organizations resort to firing poor performers. However, considering the costs of selection, recruiting, and training, this appears to be a costly way out.
Put a solution in place. A cost-effective alternative is to invest in 'poor performers'. This includes training to build skills that deal with performance issues before they escalate. The need for such training stems from an analysis, which indicates that poor performers can turn around with rehabilitation.
Good managers can manage poor performers. Some managers are incapable of managing their subordinates well. Part of this inability stems from a lack of 'poor performers' management. Some managers make the mistake of reprimanding the entire team instead of just the employee. This hurts the morale of the top performing employees in the group. Some managers believe in confronting employees. Threatening or accusing poor performing employees eventually leads to contract termination and, in bad cases, litigious problems.
Performance improvement for managers too! Training managers to deal with poor performers will add the much-needed feather to their existing managerial skills. However, before formulating a performance management-training program, it is important to assess whether the managers require such training.