attractorconsulting.com

Photo: bixentro, Flickr

The article Are Poor Managers the Weak Link? looked at impact of poor manager performance on organisational productivity and questioned the effect on the public sector’s capability to deliver the transformation required over the next few years.

Recent research by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) has added some interesting facts which give new context to the concerns raised earlier. Commentators have suggested the research show managers are guilty of self delusion.

Undertaking research covering more than 2000 managers in the UK, the CMI research revealed that 63% of managers had no management training before taking up a senior post and only 20%  of managers hold any type of formal management qualification.

As well as the lack of training and qualifications, CMI believes the problem reflects the fact that people have become managers “by accident”, having had no desire to become a manager when they embarked on their careers.

Promotion to higher level of authority and responsibility without training or qualifications was leading to real difficulties. Read the rest of this entry →

Photo: amontei, Flickr

In July 2010, Anthony Dance asks on the HRZone website why poor manager performance was not seen as a key issue for HR practitioners. It’s absolutely the case that many organisations see gaps in management capability as a  serious problem.

A quick trawl through Personnel Today sees poor managers blamed for provoking conflict, increasing the levels of sickness absence, causing under-performance and creating a culture which allows poor customer service.

These concerns certainly aren’t surprising. In its 2005 Workplace Productivity Survey, the US-based Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) examined workplace factors which impacted on worker productivity. The survey gained responses from 478 HR professionals and 613 employees and 58% of respondents reported the most important factor holding employee productivity back was poor management. Read the rest of this entry →

Photo: Oude School, Flickr

The HR blogsite, KnowHR recently drew attention to an interview with UCLA Business Professor, Samual Culbert, reported on the NPR  website.Culbert’s ideas were set out in an article in The Wall Street Journal and in a recent book “Get Rid of the Performance Review!”.

He calls the Performance Review a ”corporate sham is one of the most insidious, most damaging, and yet most ubiquitous of corporate activities.”

He suggests periodic reviews help neither employee nor employer as they fail to promote candid discussions about problems and solutions. Instead workers talk about successes and bosses retrospectively write reports which justify the level of pay award they want to pay.

In reality Culbert’s message tells us more about how managers’ behaviour impacts on the workforce, instilling fear through intimidation and deliberately manipulating performance reviews to preserve personal authority and domination in relationships.

Such organisations certainly exist, but Attractor keeps a very wide berth from them – instead working with teams which are, at the very least far “less malign”.

In describing managers’ behaviour, Culbert highlights the point few managers obtain their role due to “their keen understanding of people”, instead basing action “on self-serving logic and clumsy attempts at control”.

Culbert’s suggests removing performance reviews would facilitate a more straight-talking relationship involving a “performance preview” in which managers “just tell the employee what he or she needs to do to become more effective”. In reality then, the “performance preview” is really an effective appraisal and development review – underpinned by a positive working relationship, good leadership and management.

Top-performing leaders build working relationships which foster trust, engagement and respect within the workplace – horizontally and vertically. While the boss might have to make final decisions, there is plenty to learn from the skills, experience and perspectives of team members at all levels.

Encouraging interaction, sharing diverse and contrary views requires stout-hearted speaking and listening which – Culbert is right to point out – is not as common in the workplace as it should be. Read the rest of this entry →

Commentators suggest poor performance is more tolerated in the public sector than the private sector.

The prevalent view says the public sector exhibits significant shortcomings in performance management.

If this perception is accurate, it forms part of the context in which public sector human resources functions operate.

Where front-line managers lack capability and confidence organisations tend to look to the HR function to drive efforts to tackle poor performance. Even the most capable and dynamic HR practitioners however, cannot (should not), substitute for effective front-line managers.

With simultaneous demands for improving front-line performance and productivity, management skills are at a premium. With organisations trying to reduce back-office expenditure, how can line managers and HR teams respond effectively? Read the rest of this entry →

The Health Service Journal reports findings from Hay Group research suggesting one in four NHS managers believes underperformance is tolerated in their organisation, due to deficiencies in training and cultural acceptance,which prevented issues being effectively confronted.

The  multi-disciplinary working environment and the professional ethos of the majority ofthe workforce but the following results are interesting

• 51 per cent of managers find their ability to deliver results is hampered by a lack of organisation and planning,
• 40 per cent did not think they had enough autonomy to use their initiative,
• 38 per cent felt that the risk-taking required to innovate was not rewarded,
• 24 per cent felt they were not free to experiment.

While chief executives and trust boards often felt they were closely scrutinised by the Department of Health and strategic health authorities, the organisations’ internal performance management was considered weaker.

Does this research suggest a top-down, target driven NHS is mitigating against the innovation and experimentation needed to secure the changes and improvements required to deliver world class care?

Are the management culture and support arrangements for managing poor performance simply ineffective?

What are your experiences of dealing with poor performance within the NHS?