Friday, March 29, 2024

Put praise into appraisals

Avatar photo
Too often one of the most important factors in staff appraisals is missing – the praise part. Kiwis are commonly self-effacing and shy away from pouring on the praise, tending to excuse themselves from doing it because it’s simply not in their nature. But University of California, Davis, labour management specialist Gregorio Billikopf wants to debunk that myth.
Reading Time: 4 minutes

“I hear this same argument in a lot of countries I visit so I’m afraid to say it’s not really a valid excuse,” he said.

All too often staff appraisals are feared but not just by the employee, they can be equally as nerve-wracking for the manager and for that reason they are sometimes put off or not done at all.

But next to staff selection they’re probably the most important human resource tool farmers have at their disposal to lift productivity, Billikopf believes.

Two-way

One of the reasons it’s dreaded is that it’s viewed as an occasion when the manager has to cast judgement. There’s a sense of blame coming from the manager and for the employee a sense of guilt, inadequacy or defensiveness.

What should be happening is a two-way communication process that helps create a team approach to improving performance, he said.

His guide to running staff performance appraisals involves a series of lists generated by both the employee and the manager with the first list all about praise. Both the staff member and the manager need several weeks to prepare for the meeting and it’s crucial the staff member knows what they’ll need to take along and that the manger, too, will be preparing a set of lists.

The staff member kicks the process off by going through a list of things they believe they do well. That’s followed up by the manager also going through a list of areas where the staff member contributes to the farm operation and has a good level of skill. It can be qualitative.

“I am always on time. I’m good at listening to instructions and then getting the job done quickly.”

Or it can be quantitative. “You’ve been really sticking to the milking hygiene plan and the somatic cell count has fallen by 50,000 cells/ml this season.”

Billikopf suggests farmers don’t rush through the first part but spend about 20 minutes on the praise section, listening intently to the employee’s list then delivering their own as the manager. Time spent on this list is never wasted as it will engender a greater sense of goodwill, self-worth and eagerness to work positively on the areas the staff member needs to improve on.

Employee first

If the employee brings up, as a good point, something the manager sees as a weakness they should try first of all to see it from the employee’s point of view. Under no circumstances should they disagree with the employee at that stage but wait and discuss when going through the list of things that need improving on.

If the manager doubles up on points the employee listed the manager should still say them, reinforcing the positives. List number two gives the employee a chance to talk about what they believe they’ve improved on over the past year. As with each of the four lists included in the appraisal process, the employee should go first before the manager. Again any discussion querying the employee’s point of view should be saved until the next list – list number three on what still needs improvement.

Billikopf said the aim of the third list is to help make good employees better and help those who are performing poorly. It’s equally as important to help outstanding employees reach their full potential, something that might not happen if seemingly insignificant weak areas aren’t addressed.

By going first in reading their list employees get the chance to take the initiative and come up with their own suggestions on what still needs work.

Billikopf said it is human nature not to want to bring up personal shortcomings but it’s also natural to prefer to point them out first before someone else does it. But along with identifying those areas employees should also have been asked to prepare a couple of suggestions for how they believe they could improve.

“That way they are saying these are the things I need to improve on and here’s how I think I can do that,” he said.

“It might mean shadowing someone else on another farm or going on a training day but by coming up with a solution themselves the person comes to the meeting knowing there’s a positive way forward.”

It also means the manager can engage with them at an adult to adult level and have a considered, constructive conversation on what they’re going to do next.

If the manager finds they have a number of the same things on their list as the employee they should nod and say they agree an area is one that needs improvement. But then they should take that area off their own list as that way there’s no need to repeat what the employee has already said. By putting the issue on the list the employee has taken ownership of it.

The manager needs to take on board the fourth list with an open and willing mind. It’s the list the employee has prepared that provides suggestions on what the manager can do differently so the employee can be more effective in their job.

“It’s not asking – write down what you don’t like about me but what they genuinely believe can be done by the manager to support them and help them thrive in their job.”

The list builds on the suggestions stemming from the third list because it’s what the manager can do as opposed to what the staff member is proposing to do.

Billikopf advised farmers to use a facilitator initially until they felt comfortable with the process.

It was a good idea to then bring them in once every three years to make sure it was still being run well and to find out where the manager could improve.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading