Showing posts with label employee engagement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employee engagement. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Optimize the Employee Performance Review

In today’s technology-intensive business climate, employers must be able to accurately gauge the evolving needs of their enterprise, how individual employees are coping with change, and how each staff member’s role is shifting relative to h/er original job description. The individual employee performance review can be an effective tool for measuring progress, and for improving productivity, morale, and relations between managers and staff. But it can also be a waste of time if the participants are unprepared.

Prepare for the performance evaluation in advance and pay attention to details. Here are some areas you may want to consider:

  the employee’s professional rapport with h/er co-workers, superiors, and subordinates

  skills and execution in key areas like organization, timely response to e-mails and phone messages, courtesy toward clients (barring exceptional circumstances), and completion of tasks ahead of deadlines or key dates

  any comments or feedback, whether complimentary or otherwise, about the employee from h/er colleagues or immediate supervisors

  opportunities for professional growth, on-the-job training, and skills upgrades

It is wise to give an employee plenty of notice that a performance review is forthcoming, and remind h/er a few days before the meeting. This will give h/er time to identify issues that s/he may want to raise, including h/er goals within the organization, and areas where s/he may need additional support.

Hold the evaluation in a confidential space, and set an agenda.
 
Dedicate a certain number of minutes to each area you’d like to discuss; aim to stay more or less on topic and on schedule. Confidentiality is important. You don’t want everyone in the office to know your opinion of the employee, and the employee won’t want rumours about h/er strengths, weaknesses, impressions of relationships with colleagues and professional goals to spread.

Don’t leave compensation to the end.

Employees are understandably interested to know the level of compensation they can expect today and in the future. If the individual you’re evaluating senses that you’re glossing over the subject or avoiding it, it could become an elephant in the room. And distractions of that magnitude during an evaluation are never helpful.

Whether you believe a raise is in order or not, state your position and your rationale. If possible, try to put a positive spin on a non-raise by hinting at actions your employee can take to qualify for a salary bump and increased responsibility. Staff who feel that their pay is arbitrary, or that their career is stuck in neutral, may become discouraged and contemplate moving on.

Ask questions, and provide opportunities for your counterpart to do the same.

You may have formed a certain impression of the employee and h/er performance already, but it’s still important to hear the other person’s point of view. You could even begin the meeting by asking the employee to evaluate h/er own performance, and compare that assessment to your own.

In the event of an underperformance, there may be confounding factors you haven’t accounted for. On the other hand, if an employee is enjoying success, s/he may offer an explanation that will enable you to foster h/er continued success.

Finally, just as you would at the end of a job interview, reserve a few minutes for the employee to ask questions, raise concerns, and pitch ideas of h/er own.

Make sure you’re on the same page.

Review the key points raised during the evaluation as it draws to a close, and ensure that you both (employee and manager) understand and accept your expectations of each other, and your responsibilities moving forward.

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Are Women Better Managers Than Men?

According to a Gallup survey published late last year, women in management positions in the U.S. tend to outscore men when it comes to employee engagement—which is a key predictor of productivity, job satisfaction, and employee loyalty. The polling organization concluded that American firms would benefit from promoting more women to positions of authority. This result suggests that not only is the advancement of women important from a social justice perspective; it is also a prudent business decision.
 
Of course, some qualification is necessary here. The world is home to excellent, mediocre, and lacklustre managers of both sexes, and the survey’s findings indicate a trend rather than a universal absolute. The average levels of employee engagement detected by Gallup are also disconcertingly low overall—from 25 to 35 percent. Nonetheless, the scores for female managers are superior across the board.

At least two questions spring to mind in response to the study: why do female managers tend to engage their employees more effectively than male managers? And what are some of the common traits that make female managers more successful, on average, than their male counterparts?

Gallup’s elements of great managing.

Gallup’s evaluation of employee engagement, and the questions it posed in its survey, are based on 12 elements of managing, all of which reflect aspects of employee engagement and productivity. Engaged employees are likelier to feel that they have a clear mission and the resources they need to do their job well; that managers take their opinions and ideas into consideration; that they have opportunities for career development and advancement within the organization; that their colleagues and superiors care about them and are invested in their success; and that they receive regular feedback and encouragement. Less-engaged employees may believe their work is not especially important or not valued by the organization; that they have no real avenue to growth and progress (i.e. that they are in a dead-end job); or that their managers and co-workers don’t care about them, either personally or professionally.

The survey indicates that female managers check in more often on the individual members of their team, provide greater feedback and positive reinforcement, and are likelier than male managers to praise good work.

The downside of manliness.

 The gender binary—that contrived line of demarcation that distinguishes “male” qualities from “female” qualities—informs the individual identity of most people in our culture, along with our social interactions, and our perceptions of each other. In childhood and adolescence, a lot of boys and young men are encouraged to adopt personality traits traditionally associated with masculinity: toughness, strength, dispassion, tolerance for pain and discomfort, independence, and an aversion to betraying any sign of vulnerability. (This is why so many men are reluctant to ask for directions when we are lost: because it would require us to acknowledge that we have a problem we can’t solve on our own.)

These stereotypically “manly” traits are not always useful in a modern office environment. To engage employees requires emotional tact and intelligence, and excellent communication and social skills. On average, women tend to have the upper hand in those departments.

Improving engagement.

Nearly all managers can bring about improvements in employee morale by attending to the core areas of engagement and job satisfaction. The advantages of better engagement include enhanced productivity, and improved chances of retaining highly skilled and desirable workers. The Gallup survey’s implications are clear: if employee engagement is one of your organizational priorities, you’ll improve your chances of achieving it by promoting more women to management positions.