Interesting topic. I haven't personally had to create a yearly e-learning review program, so I can't share personal experiences on this topic.... However, I was able to curate a list of some past forum discussions that are related to this topic that you may be able to glean some insights from to help you with your project:
I (almost) did this for a company once, but I left before completion
The key thing here, without wishing to sound too obvious, is that managers actually UNDERSTAND the Competencies and Behaviour structure. If they decide to "wing it" on the day, you will end up with horribly sub-optimal ratings, and bad experiences for the staff being reviewed.
I recommended that the process of manager/assessor ramp-up started in the Quarter before the reviews were to be completed, and that they were tested on these, and how to correctly assess.
When we were devising this, one thing became clear to me - there was a complete lack of definition in one area, how to spot when competencies were NOT being displayed. Being able to tie a specific work incident or incidents to competencies, and explain this is why you are NOT being rated as high on this was a major area of omission.
Having this also allows you to justify the setting of future goals, and a personal achievement target for the person being rated.
There should be NO surprises for either the assessor or the staff member in reviews, it should just be a formalisation of things that everyone already knows, so they require, (IMHO) at least 2 quarters to plan, check managerial competency, and then execute. Too often this is done on a wing and a prayer, and that's one of the reasons why reviews are devalued and debased in many organisations.
Our competency model has 3 target audience (Sr Management, Middle Management and Management(no direct report). Each target audience have 2-3 competencies and those competency have a 3 level rating (developing capacity, capable and master).
I was thinking about creating scenarios so that the target audience would need to rate, which is the core of this training : how to rate on competency.
I'm not sure which approach would be best if I don't want to end up having to create 11 scenarios to reach all..
I would try and keep it as simple as possible - 11 probably too much.
What they need to understand is the PRINCIPLE of ratings, how to PLAN and THINK about them, and then do it HONESTLY AND FAIRLY.
The rating, and discussions around those should be simple, it is the concepts they need to understand...I think...and then have a couple of practices.
Hard to be specific without knowing the exact details, but the techniques and principles are usually the same across bands, except Senior Management often seem to think they are so senior they do not need to do some planning first
I've done this a few times. Here are some random thoughts for you...
You (and your learners) are VERY late to the party. One of the key principles behind this sort of yearly performance rating is that there are "no surprises". How can employees be expected to know what good looks like if their supervisors didn't until after the year is over? How could they have been coached along the way? etc Here is a best-practice principle.... If your employee receives a rating at the end of the year they are surprised by, then you've failed as a coach/supervisor.
All that being said, yes it often common practice to create a matrix describing what each performance level looks like (generically) for every competency/skill. Think "Sometimes invests in personal development and learning about the industry...." vs "Reliably takes advantage of development opportunities when presented...." vs "Consistently seeks out and explores ways to develop him/herself and shares the learnings with....". This kind of guidance/example is invaluable for leaders and employees alike to gauge performance. Now to Bruce's point, do you need to teach each of box of this matrix in an e-learning module? No. But it should be referenced... or better yet applied by the learner via a few scenarios.
Also, does your performance rating cycle include any sort of round-table or shared review? This is a critical piece that helps ensure fairness, different perspectives, and helps counter act bias in either direction.
Speaking of which... will your training include a piece on how to avoid bias and all of the other common "traps" raters fall into such as rating on recency vs full cycle, rating on key project instead of broader look, rating on potential instead of performance, etc?
Hope these ramblings help get things started for you and good luck with he project
7 Replies
Hey Julie.
Interesting topic. I haven't personally had to create a yearly e-learning review program, so I can't share personal experiences on this topic.... However, I was able to curate a list of some past forum discussions that are related to this topic that you may be able to glean some insights from to help you with your project:
Hope this helps a bit Julie... Good Luck with this initiative!!
I (almost) did this for a company once, but I left before completion
The key thing here, without wishing to sound too obvious, is that managers actually UNDERSTAND the Competencies and Behaviour structure. If they decide to "wing it" on the day, you will end up with horribly sub-optimal ratings, and bad experiences for the staff being reviewed.
I recommended that the process of manager/assessor ramp-up started in the Quarter before the reviews were to be completed, and that they were tested on these, and how to correctly assess.
When we were devising this, one thing became clear to me - there was a complete lack of definition in one area, how to spot when competencies were NOT being displayed. Being able to tie a specific work incident or incidents to competencies, and explain this is why you are NOT being rated as high on this was a major area of omission.
Having this also allows you to justify the setting of future goals, and a personal achievement target for the person being rated.
There should be NO surprises for either the assessor or the staff member in reviews, it should just be a formalisation of things that everyone already knows, so they require, (IMHO) at least 2 quarters to plan, check managerial competency, and then execute. Too often this is done on a wing and a prayer, and that's one of the reasons why reviews are devalued and debased in many organisations.
Hope that helps.
Thank you Bruce, it's greatly appreciated.
One more question : )
Our competency model has 3 target audience (Sr Management, Middle Management and Management(no direct report). Each target audience have 2-3 competencies and those competency have a 3 level rating (developing capacity, capable and master).
I was thinking about creating scenarios so that the target audience would need to rate, which is the core of this training : how to rate on competency.
I'm not sure which approach would be best if I don't want to end up having to create 11 scenarios to reach all..
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Julie
I would try and keep it as simple as possible - 11 probably too much.
What they need to understand is the PRINCIPLE of ratings, how to PLAN and THINK about them, and then do it HONESTLY AND FAIRLY.
The rating, and discussions around those should be simple, it is the concepts they need to understand...I think...and then have a couple of practices.
Hard to be specific without knowing the exact details, but the techniques and principles are usually the same across bands, except Senior Management often seem to think they are so senior they do not need to do some planning first
Does that help?
Thank you Bruce, that's what I thought, but my SME wants to have all 11 scenarios...
How to deal with SMEs is another story !
Julie
Hi Julie,
I've done this a few times. Here are some random thoughts for you...
You (and your learners) are VERY late to the party. One of the key principles behind this sort of yearly performance rating is that there are "no surprises". How can employees be expected to know what good looks like if their supervisors didn't until after the year is over? How could they have been coached along the way? etc Here is a best-practice principle.... If your employee receives a rating at the end of the year they are surprised by, then you've failed as a coach/supervisor.
All that being said, yes it often common practice to create a matrix describing what each performance level looks like (generically) for every competency/skill. Think "Sometimes invests in personal development and learning about the industry...." vs "Reliably takes advantage of development opportunities when presented...." vs "Consistently seeks out and explores ways to develop him/herself and shares the learnings with....". This kind of guidance/example is invaluable for leaders and employees alike to gauge performance. Now to Bruce's point, do you need to teach each of box of this matrix in an e-learning module? No. But it should be referenced... or better yet applied by the learner via a few scenarios.
Also, does your performance rating cycle include any sort of round-table or shared review? This is a critical piece that helps ensure fairness, different perspectives, and helps counter act bias in either direction.
Speaking of which... will your training include a piece on how to avoid bias and all of the other common "traps" raters fall into such as rating on recency vs full cycle, rating on key project instead of broader look, rating on potential instead of performance, etc?
Hope these ramblings help get things started for you and good luck with he project
Bob
This discussion is closed. You can start a new discussion or contact Articulate Support.