Sep 4th 2009
Loading ...To the boss, one removed
Are we running our businesses on merit, or locking in nepotism and building power silos? Companies should remove the job of developing people from their direct managers, says David Murray, chairman of the Future Fund Board of Guardians.
Productivity and wealth creation in business depend on the relationship between inputs and outputs. When we consider the systems that govern this relationship we commonly think of business models, technical systems, engineering processes and the like. Often we exclude people systems from our thinking, yet they are more important than the other systems.
A lot has been debated around people engagement, leadership, idea generation and development. All of these are critical to good HR systems. There are, however, some aspects of HR systems which get very little attention and, yet, can cause significant shortfalls in productivity.
At the heart of any good HR system should be the notion that business is run on merit, not power. If people see advantage in hitching their wagon to others for self promotion, they may be committing themselves to what somebody else wants in their own interest, not necessarily to what is the best for the business. This can deteriorate into serious corporate dysfunction in which nepotism governs a company.
http://www.vimeo.com/6588007Development should be separated from performance assessment and become the responsibility of the manager one removed (the boss’s boss) not the immediate manager. This is important because among those working at the same level of complexity there will be a common interest in being elevated to a higher level of complexity. If nepotism exists the immediate manager cannot make a merit-based decision on development. The manager one removed, however, can, and has more experience of work complexity than the immediate manager at their level.
With regard to performance assessment, the common practice of annual reports produces a central tendency in statistical outcomes and is distant in time from day-to-day work. If common measurements are used, the assessments are also remote from the specific requirements of each job. Performance assessment should be undertaken in the natural work cycle time (whether daily, weekly, monthly etc.) by the manager or supervisor.
Where jobs and the attendant authorities have not been well specified, this approach will highlight deficiencies more quickly than an annual reporting system. This is important because the two most basic drivers of engagement are work accountabilities and authorities plus the right tools to do the job. In fact if these are not in place then all the mission statements, charismatic leadership styles, company songs and the like will be of no value.
In assessing performance and development potential the use of 360 degree evaluations is more likely to lock in nepotism, harm productivity and detract from accountability of managers and supervisors.
To get great development outcomes the manager one removed should have a development plan agreed for each person. This will be derived from an evaluation of their capacity to work at higher levels of complexity and their behaviours. Just as companies build inventory to manage risk, there should be a development buffer at each higher level to allow time and effort to be devoted to good succession outcomes.
This is a summary of a presentation made by David Murray at a panel presentation ‘Do Australian Business Systems Fail Our Best People?’, hosted by UTS on September 10, 2009.
Comments