How often do you conduct Performance Management meetings in your business?
I want to understand how some companies use Performance Management/Development, the frequency and the effectiveness of those meetings. More importantly what is the impact on achieving your target?
One feed back schedule form has been designed well in technical way to access informatactfully in each week. thanks
I run a Team Meeting by phone once a week and in person once a month, and I have one-on-one phone meetings every week. I train and mentor primarily on these calls and make sure my employees are moving the right direction and achieving their milestones towards attaining their goals.
This has proven to be much more effective than twice-monthly or just monthly meetings for me.
Achieving your targets is much more linked to people engagement than to performance management meetings frequency. People tend to dedicate much more on anything they truly commit themselves with. Having said that, I recommend you to focus on:
- Weekly: informal and very quick checking points
- Monthly: engagement meetings one-on-one
- Quarterly: team meetings to share accomplishments adjusting details
- Annually: reviewing entire proccess and people performance, establishing new goals
Performance Management was conducted quarterly in my last two organizations. In my opinion, these quarterly sessions were more a formality ,as a leaders role should be to constantly be communicating with their team on both successes and areas of focus. A performance meeting should be to review and document that regular contact, with no surprises. I am not a fan of quarterly...I feel it is a bit to frequent. I think that this formal review should take place mid-year and year end, with the exception of employees who are not on target, and require more frequent check ins. If your goals are very clearly structured and measurable, the check ins are fairly straight forward, but still a good opportunity to make sure everyone is on the same page, and there have not been any major changes (which never happens....lol). I think the meetings are very impactful, showing that you are interested in your teams success, and helping you to understand the system from their perspective as well.
Current state...my organization conducts reviews once annually, except for the first year of employment where an employee receives two, one at 6 months and one at 12. Goal setting is done during the annual review. Desired state...develop a culture where frequent discussions around performance are viewed as a critical to driving employee engagement with a process that includes frequent (monthly) conversations around performance and goal progress. These conversations roll-up and are memorialized in an annual review. Employees take an active role in evaluating their own performance through self-eval's, and both employee and supervisor engage in "gap" conversations around performance to develop growth/improvement plan(s) to address the gap(s).
Each 1/4 aas a review not to see how well you are tracking but to also provide feedback and course adjustments, and or recommendations.
Most companies, in theory, conduct them with the following cycle:
1. start of the business year,set the goals for the year based on alignment of the objectives to the business objectives, i.e. commitments of the direct manager.
2. about six months later have a progress report and make adjustments
3. Year end review if the goals are met or not and what happens as a result and set goals for the coming year.
Most ineffective. To have performance improvement it must be an ongoing dialogue between manager and direct report that can be initiated by either side. It has to have goals that align to the vision and values. It has to have meaningful consequences - positive and negative - set when the goals are set. If adjustments to the gals are made then they are the goals for the end of year, not the original goals.
Behaviours should be addressed as appropriate or inappropriate. For more see my articles at http://www.sagltd.com/sagltd.com/Articles.html. l in particular the articles in the 2002 grouping. There are three specifically on performance management:
We would do them quarterly. The ones we did every quarter were more like a touch base review to ensure each candidate was on track to their goals. The annual was more comprehensive as the final scores were tied to candidates merit increase.
Frequency for me is driven by need and change. In my industry, Post Affordable Care Act implementation, much of or operation changed. That necessitated more frequent reviews to help focus and refine our efforts. In a tame period that may be more like 2 times per annual with one being more and informal touch and search for opportunity to refine efforts, and the second being a more formal review dovetailing to annual performance reviews.
The meetings can be driven by how long to implement the last set of actions, and then a review for those and a plan for the next steps. During a project a few years back we had a weekly meeting of the keys players (often a stand up meeting) and then a monthly report and recap. Our meeting room was essentially walled with "white board" and we used a camera to capture notes when needed. Not sophisticated, but it proved highly effective.