When do Self Evaluation Tools Work?

Do self evaluation tools help in an organizational context?

Or rather the question should be ‘When do self evaluation tools help in an organizational context?’

There are 2 requirements for ensuring effectiveness of self evaluation tools. Firstly, respondents must be willing to mark choices which genuinely characterize them instead of marking ‘more socially acceptable choices’. Secondly, respondents must be willing to identify areas for action and act on them. Often the usual response after taking a self evaluation tool is ‘I am of this type and that explains why I behave the way I do. I am ok with this and I don’t think I need to change anything.’

As Managers and Facilitators at workplace what can we do to make self evaluation tools more effective?

It is easy to say that we must administer these tools to individuals only when they are ready for the same. There is merit in this school of thought but there is also a danger. This danger is of managers/facilitators being passive spectators in the entire process; of absolving oneself of any responsibility to actively shape their workplace.

The question is ‘When are individuals ready to answer genuinely to self evaluation tools, identify action areas, and act on the same? What can managers/ facilitators do to create relevant environmental conditions?’

There are two ways of addressing this situation. You either create conditions for ‘safety’ or of ‘discomfort’. Do you remember the times when you experimented or when you felt you changed significantly? These would have come either from situations where ‘discomfort’ with status quo was so high that you had no option but to change, or from situations characterized by ‘safety’ where you chanced upon a better way of doing things while experimenting and adopted the same.

Which one is a better environmental condition to create – Discomfort or Safety?

Would you want to be in discomfort 7 days a week, 365 days a year? I am fairly sure most people would not want to be in discomfort continuously.

I do feel the challenge for managers/facilitators is to create conditions of ‘safety’ at the workplace. When an employee feels safe, he is willing to experiment. Self evaluation tools can work under such circumstances. Feeling safe is a state of being we are okay being in continuously – rather we would want ‘safe conditions’.

Does this mean there is no place for discomfort at the workplace? There is place for discomfort – but not continuous discomfort. You would not want your adrenaline pumping 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

What should a manager do if he realizes there is no sense of discomfort within his team ever? I would contend it does not matter as long as from the safety domain within which the team is working, it is extending itself and performing well. And if you really want individuals to answer genuinely to self evaluation tools and act on identified areas, I doubt whether conditions of discomfort/non-safety are effective.

-

Sourav

Phenomenal Field and Informed Choices

Some months back a friend shared an article on how learnings from the Roald Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” can be applied to selection and recruitment. The article spoke about 3 ways of approaching selection and recruitment:

• Psychometric paradigm – this is about selecting a candidate for the organization. Hence look at what is required of an individual to do the job and then assess the candidate on these parameters. The underlying assumption here is that jobs are relatively stable and individuals are the variable which result in performance or non – performance on the job.
• Social Process paradigm – an interview is a part of wider gamut of social interactions..don’t look at an interview as an end in itself..be sensitive to people.
• Person – Organization Fit paradigm –This is about both the parties getting full information on each other and then making an informed choice. Hence there is a lot of mutual information sharing which happens. Hence anchoring candidates onto the company would start off much before making the final offer. It would ideally start off from the first interaction he has about the company. Second, you just don’t stop with evaluating the person for the job. You get to know his “phenomenal field”. The underlying assumptions here are that jobs are not relatively stable and individuals are not the only variable that impact performance/non – performance on the job. You will need to evaluate an individual in terms of the context he would be getting into (the work team, bosses, culture, etc).

Should we look at the “phenomenal field” of an individual?

At the end of the day, all change is caused by individuals. Hence individuals are the instruments for change. But then is there a case for considering the social context s/he would get into? There is a risk of stereotyping here but at the same time it is imperative to understand how an individual would be able to work with and through the key stakeholders in a social context. The focus here is not on whether the individual is significantly different from the others in the system. The focus is rather on how the individual would be an active creator of effective social interactions.

What about “anchoring an individual” towards the company?

Anchoring an individual should start off from the first interaction. Irrespective of whether an individual gets selected or not, s/he still would have formed impressions about your company and would be a messenger. Sharing information with individuals is an important part of creating buy in for the individuals. Anything which is different is bad – that’s normal human reaction. This is the mindset of a new comer to the organization – especially a lateral hire. Anchoring him around how things might be different in your workplace is an ongoing responsibility of the recruitment manager until the joining process is completed, and subsequently of the immediate boss.

In today’s world the individual chooses the organization as much as the organization chooses the individual. At the end of the day, it is the responsibility of the organization to ensure it makes an informed choice and the candidate gets the opportunity to make an informed choice too.

-

Sourav

HR-Team Discussions

What are town hall discussions between HR Managers and teams they work with meant to accomplish?

Visualize a HR Manager having a discussion with a team of around 15-20 employees. What should be the content of the discussion? Who all should be there? What should be the decision making process during such discussions?

Here are a few thoughts:

• I frequently hear that it helps line function to get an independent point of view on health of HR processes in a team. This is the reason why HR Managers usually meet teams without representation from the line hierarchy. But at the end of day, implementation would have to be done by line function. Hence it is necessary that all relevant people are present in the room. Until and unless it is an exigency (e.g.- a complaint against the boss needs to be investigated), the team should always be met along with their reporting manager. The reporting manager has implementation authority when it comes to his team, and any solution proposed which does not having his buy-in would not work.
• There might be situations when reporting manager or other key stakeholders are not in the room. In such situations it is necessary that all stakeholders are talked to before a conclusion is formed on any issue. So when points are raised by team about important stakeholders not present in the room, the HR Manager should mention something like ‘I’ve heard what you guys have to say on this issue. I would further talk to XYZ person to understand his take on the issue. I would get back to you on the way ahead by around this time.’
• Such forums can be used to discuss in detail certain key HR initiatives/processes being focused on in the year and get the team’s buy-in for implementation at the local level. Hence it is necessary that HR Manager is clear about initiatives/processes he would discuss and what outcomes he would aim for in the meeting.
• Such forums are a place to explore health of HR processes in team. This is not easy to evaluate. For any HR process there are 2 levels of evaluation. First, has process being executed in letter? E.g – have goal setting, mid term reviews, and end term reviews happened for each team member? Second, has the process being executed in spirit? This is where an exploration of how the conversation in each part of the process was would help. The objective at this second level is around – was that particular conversation effective in meeting objectives of the process?
• Such forums also provide an opportunity to understand intra-team dynamics. Is this team effective? How are the relations within the team? Again the unit of observation and analysis would be conversations within the team.
• It is important that clarifications on road ahead are made. Whatever can be committed to should be committed to right away. A note to all stakeholders who were not present in the room should be sent. The objective is to ensure these stakeholders also understand what behaviors they might need to change or what the team expects from them.
• There is a possibility that a HR Manager comes across a team which acts powerless or doesn’t take ownership for issues it faces. The primary objective of the discussion in such meetings would be to make the team members aware of the dysfunctional role they are playing and egg them on take ownership to resolve the issues they want resolution to.

-

Sourav