by Don Harkey
A company has a long time performance appraisal system that is considered to be a benchmark for the industry. The appraisal system allows the employee to chart their own course and puts gives the employee the responsibility to design their own development plan. Employees are then measured on the success against their own plan and given raises accordingly.
One employee in particular truly struggled with this approach. While it is certainly appealing to set your own expectations and spend company time on self-discovery, there was something about this system that went against the core of this employee. As the employee developed his own development plan, he became more and more frustrated until finally he sent a note to his HR director asking for help.
The HR director and the employee met and the HR director carefully laid out the benefits of the appraisal system. The HR director encouraged the employee to develop a 1-year, 10-year, and 30-year career plan. "Where is it you want to go? What do you want to accomplish with your career?", asked the HR director.
A light went on inside the head of the employee. The clouds lifted and suddenly he understood why he had been struggling. "I have just 2 questions for you. Here is the first one. What if I don't meet my career objective?"
The HR director apparently took pity on the question and offered encouragement. "Oh, come now. That is the beauty of this system. If you lay out a clear path for yourself and work hard, you are almost assured of reaching your objective. You are a smart guy! You'll get there!".
"Well, thank you", replied the employee, "but I have one more question and this one is harder to answer."
"Go ahead. That's why I'm here.", answered the HR director confidently.
"What is I do meet my career objective?", asked the employee softly.
The HR director paused for a moment. "Then you have reached your objective. You have succeeded. I'm not sure what you mean."
"My point is this", replied the employee. "If I set an objective for myself and I never reach it, I will be disappointed that I have essentially failed in my career. If I set an objective for myself and I reach it, I will wonder if I should have aimed higher and will wonder what to do next. Neither alternative is very attractive."
The HR director was silent, so the employee continued. "This is what truly bothered me because this philosophy indicates that I will not have a rewarding career regardless of what I do. I knew this couldn't be true because I have already derived enjoyment from my work. It wasn't until we started talking that I realized the inherent flaw in the performance appraisal process. It focuses on results when life is really about the journey."
The HR director was stunned. After a few seconds of silence, the HR director spoke for 30 minutes admitting that her career objective had been met and that she had made so many sacrifices along the way to meet the objective and now found herself in a job she didn't particularly enjoy working within a system that her education told her should be great, but simply wasn't. She wasn't happy.
My point here is simple. Setting goals and objectives is not a bad practice, but the real joys in life happen on the road. It's not about getting the promotion, it's about making decisions, working toward a common vision, and using your strengths to succeed and to fail brilliantly. The true measure of the output of our lives is in the ways we utilize all of the moments we are given. This is true at work as well as at home or at play.
.bmp)
Posts
From a performance evaluation standpoint I understand this perspective. If I am to set my own goals which allow me to "participate" in my own evaluation it does not address journey vs. end result. The problem, as I see it, is that such an evaluation policy defines a relationship that is a falicy. I work to fulfill a need for my employer. If I want to change that need and my employer agrees (with a salary increase involved, of course...) then everything still fits. But to make a policy that claims to help me develop my skills, etc. all the while truly just wanting the employee to fulfill that original need is misleading. In this case it's the employer's misuse of the approach, not the approach itself, that is the problem.
ReplyDeleteIt's great that life can be a journey. But it really only matters if someone wants to spend money on you while you're taking it. I'll admit the view is a bit cynical and partially derived from a Silverchair song...
And Mike Rowe has an interesting perspective that follows your idea about the journey. Not everyone ends up where they thought they would but can enjoy it none the less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRVdiHu1VCc
Don, much appreciate your insight here.
ReplyDeleteIn opposition to magilson, I would have to say that the employee is not supposed to be filling a need for the employer, but rather the employer serving the employee. It is an entrepreneur's privilege and responsibility to serve those they lead. Obviously, employment has to be financially viable, but that's just part of ensuring that both the company's vision and the individual's vision are collinear and synergistic.
Contrary to popular misinformation, business is not about generating money. It's about generating happiness. And happiness is in the journey.
Kurt Theobald
Classy Llama Studios
http://www.classyllama.com
In a strict sense business may not necessarily be about generating money. But, and unfortunately, this is often the common denominator. Business is about providing value that can be exchanged, to be more fundamental. If the happiness of employees is an exchangable good or service then certainly a business in the business of making happy employees is possible. But I think you see where I'm going with this (or at least I hope so).
ReplyDeleteIt's important for an individual to keep in mind that they are likely to be more productive (and thus, in either my or your theory) more easily compensated by money or happiness. And it is in the best interest of an employer to keep this in mind as well for the same reasons. But it is very important to remember the distinction between happiness for the sake of someone's idea of their own happiness and happiness as the means to the output of a business.
Without that distinction, I would imagine both of you spending more time asking an employee if they're happy performing they're task than making sure you can still pay them next month. Surely you see the link?
Let the individual assume the task of their own happiness. Assuming that roll for others has only resulted (in the aggregate) in the dilution of both goals.