+44 (0)1491 411544info@3cperform.co.uk
Welcome to The 3C Blog! Putting Managers at the Heart of Performance Management

To Bonus or Not to Bonus

In recent weeks the public sector has got very confused about the role and purpose of bonus payments.  Perhaps the rest of us should be grateful we don’t have to make bonus decisions in the glare of the national media – for it is clear from many of the conversations we have every day with clients, that establishing the criteria and purpose of bonuses is a real struggle.

So one more time – money is not a motivator!  ALL the research shows that once people get beyond the ‘subsistence’ level of earnings, offering more money for achieving more does not result in a significant level of improved performance for any sustained period.

Some years ago, it was thought a good idea to introduce performance related pay to some areas of public service.  The idea was very beguiling: improve public services by setting higher performance standards, and offer a bonus if they are achieved.

The reality is of course rather more awkward – it now looks like bonuses are being paid simply for ‘doing the job’.

This is true in most organisations that operate a ‘bonus for performance’ – there must be a constant nagging worry that the level of performance would have been achieved anyway – without the bonus carrot.  And again – the research confirms that the carrot of more money does not materially affect performance – especially in well paid roles.

The only good thing about setting bonus targets at the beginning of the year, is that it forces managers to think about what ‘good performance’ would look like.  Now ideally, managers should do this anyway, but the reality is that many don’t.

There is no ‘ideal’ solution to bonus payments – it is clear that if one company pays significantly less than another down the road, for the same level of performance,  then assuming there are not significant other benefits to compensate for the difference in pay, the higher paying organisation is likley to be able to attract and recruit the best people.

So, by all means reward people for doing well, and definitely keep an eye on overall reward levels for your key people – just don’t expect a bonus payment to make a long term difference to performance.

Posted in Consultancy, Training |
Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is your whole organisation under-performing – including you?

It’s that goal setting time of year again… and I just had a quick review of the goal setting research – gave myself a shock reminder!

People who ‘do their best’ consistently under-perform against those who have challenging, demanding goals.  So if goal setting is weak, ineffective or non-existent at your place of work, then you ( and everyone else) are almost certainly not achieving what you could – even if you are working very hard.

The toughest pill to swallow – even if you have given your managers loads of SMART type goal setting training, the chances are they may still not set good goals. It’s not that people don’t ‘get ‘ SMART – its just that setting good goals takes time and is hard work.

You can find a great summary of all the goal research at

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~antonvillado/courses/08c_psyc101002/Research%20Report%204.pdf

If you’d like some ideas on what to do about goal setting – there is a free white paper here

http://www.3c-performance-management.co.uk/consultancy/white-papers.html

Happy Reading!

Posted in Consultancy, Training |
Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Andy Flowers – sports coach of the year – says keep it simple

In between the doom and gloom that was the Today programme this morning was a short illuminating interview with Andy Flowers, England Cricket Coach.  He has been named Sports Coach of the Year, and was asked about his secrets for being a great coach.

In typical Flowers style he praised the ECC for putting in place the right structures, and Strauss for being a great Captain.  When pushed on his own contribution he said the coaching team hadn’t done anything complicated, just focused on getting simple things right.  His one piece of advice to others was ‘ The search for simplicity is a great place to start’.

A lot of clients talk about the challenge of managing performance in a highly complex environment inevitably leading to highly complex solutions.  Infact, results come from a genuine insight into the essentials that must be got right, and focusing performance management around these.  The more complex the environment, the more difficult and essential this focus becomes.

Taking the simple route isn’t easy, but sitting down with your team to reassess programmes for simplicity is a great first step.

1    Is your performance management process sufficiently described for daily use on just one page?

2    Are job descriptions a clear aspirational picture of what a good employee looks like in that role or a lengthy document packed with policy and micro-management detail?

3    How many sentences does it take you to explain the purpose of performance management in your organisation ( more than three and you need to start simplifying)?

Posted in Consultancy |
Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Your rating scale says a lot about your organisation

Had several discussions this week with clients looking at their overall rating scales.  Usually the discussion starts with ‘shall we have 4 points or 5′?

It might seem a technical issue – but the choice of scoring scale, and the split between positive and negative scores sends a powerful subliminal message to the workforce about what the organisation values.

In brief: a 5 point scale suggests to your employees you are expecting some kind of ‘bell curve’ shape around the number 3.  It also suggests that scoring 3 means you are rated ‘average’.  Since average has become a de-based word (average = bad in common parlance), then scoring 3 can be seen as a bit of an insult.  The effect of this is that assuming 1 is high and 5 is low, the actual average score using a 5 point scale is often nearer 2.  This applies whether the organisation is a top performer or not.

I usually recommend a 4 point scale.  However if you set 1 and 2 as positive while 3 and 4 are not this indicates that the organisation is just as concerned at nuancing poor performance as it is at understanding the development of high performance.

To really drive high performance, you need to be able to differentiate between for example good, excellent and genuinely outstanding.  This would give you a split where  4 accounts for a below par score, while 1, 2 and 3 are all positive.

In general, there is little to be gained from detailed analysis of poor performance in terms of annual rating.  Anyone scoring 5 on a 5 point scale should have been dealt with long before performance review.  Therefore the score of 4 on a 4 point scale is perfectly sufficient to give a jolt to underperformers, while leaving scores of 1, 2 and 3 to make clear that there is a lot to do to be a truly high performer.

A bit of a technical issue – but none the less one that actually sends a lot of subliminal messages to the workforce!

Posted in Consultancy |
Tagged , , , | Leave a comment