by William Barclay | Oct 16, 2022 | Management, Training and Development
Staff Training – Do you Like It or Hump It?
Staff training and development has its champions and many dedicated practitioners. But in many organisations their messages are still to take hold so as to create a critical momentum. There is no shortage of evidence of the benefits: increased productivity, better customer service, reduced employee turnover, and improved company culture. Turbulence in the working environment is resulting in new opportunities and challenges: the digital revolution is allowing much more flexible and tailored training delivery; the pace of change is creating a need for more frequent upskilling; and the recognition is increasing that training can be a competitive differentiator as a means of attracting talent. So why are training and development still not more frequently central in operational strategies? It’s necessary to take a step back and consider fundamental prevailing attitudes. The inconvenient reality is that many managers starting in the job possess little enthusiasm for it. It can be said that there still exists the ‘Training Hump’ – attitudes that have a variety of causes. Training can be taken to imply accountability: managers might fear that putting in place training schemes makes them more clearly accountable for the capabilities and performance levels of the workforce. They might worry that training others might in due course create an enhanced risk to their own position. They might perceive that they have achieved some personal success despite having received only limited training so why should it be different for others? They might question the effectiveness of formal training or have concerns about the cost. The possibility that time and money will have been wasted if trained staff leave the organisation might be a further concern. These attitudes can often be demonstrated in the Staff Performance Review Skew – the process is often much more taken up by appraising other staff rather than with the identification of their future training and development needs. This attitudinal underbelly exists and persists but is not acknowledged by managers themselves or the organisations they work for. It may not even be recognised. But the inability to develop staff capabilities in line with needs is a route to failure. Whole-organisation skills strategies require the development of an emphatic training and development culture having advocacy from senior management and widespread ownership. If significant attitudinal resistance exists, particularly on the part of first-line and middle management, it needs to be strongly addressed. The message is clear: training and development – like it, don’t hump it!
by William Barclay | Apr 20, 2022 | performance management, Popular
Why is performance management so poor?
In no area of management does practice differ from theory more than Performance Management. No other responsibility of managers damages their standing as much. Performance management comprises the arrangements that organisations use (i) to maintain and improve the performance of their workforce so that the organisation achieves its goals and targets; and (ii) to motivate employees and to recognise and develop their abilities. In public services it has usually involved meetings between a manager and employee at which the performance of the employee is discussed and sometimes an appraisal rating given. At the same or a different meeting, the personal development of the employee is discussed and plans agreed.
A fact sheet produced by the Trade Union Unison in 2017 on Performance Related Pay stated ‘inevitable variation in the grading of staff by different managers leads to perceptions of unfairness, discriminatory practice and resentment among staff’. Yes indeed. Appraisals conducted by one individual on another can be highly subjective, widely variable and sometimes morally corrupt. Formal criteria can be twisted, used selectively or ignored altogether. A change in manager can turn a staff member’s performance ratings upside down. Favourable ratings can arise for a variety of unofficial reasons including a jobholder having a similar personality and outside interests as the manager; slavish and unthinking support of the manager by the reportee; and a reportee and a manager having similar educational backgrounds. Unfavourable ratings can be related to a clash of personalities or genuine differences on matters of policy and procedure.
The design of performance management systems needs to recognise all of these major limitations. Performance incentive payments as non-consolidated awards to work groups of staff can be effective. The awards should depend on the group meeting a small number of agreed priority targets and should not count towards salary for pension purposes. Promotions should be administered as fairly and professionally as possible. Decisions should not depend on the viewpoint of one person alone.
Most importantly, the personal development of staff should be the primary focus of performance management, not appraisal. It can have major positive impacts. As well as boosting organisational performance, it can assist staff retention, serve succession planning and contribute towards a positive culture. The resource expended on it can be repaid many times over. The skill set of managers of people should include the ability to identify the potential of staff and knowledge of the various means – training, coaching, mentoring, job rotation, small-scale progression experiences – of realising that potential.
Read more in the book Targets and Terror by William Barclay. Available from Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Targets-Terror-Englands-Management-Revolution/dp/1916035388
