Google Ad #1 - desktop - 728x90

Google Ad #3 - desktop - 728x90

Google Ad #1 - mobile - 300x200

Google Ad #3 - mobile - 300x200

ATD_Half_Page

Googel Ad #1 - Side Bar - Content pages

ATD Footer Logo

CEB Metrics That Matter™ is a robust, proven SaaS that evaluates and improves the effectiveness of a company’s learning portfolio at driving employee performance. The primary focus of Metrics That Matter™ is to provide the analytic toolset, including world-class reporting and valuable comparative benchmarks, to empower data-driven decision making and improve the return on talent investments.

It’s Time to Engage Employees With Actions, Not Strategies

Jean Martin outlines three steps senior talent development leaders and HR teams should take now to make their HIPO processes more agile.

How to Design a HIPO Strategy in an Era of Constant Change

Bhaswati Bhattacharyya describes how to keep up with the learning demands of Millennial sales talent.

What Millennials Want From Sales Training

How Much Is Scrap Learning Costing Your Organization?

August 2016 - The Public Manager

Maintaining Productivity During Administration Transition

CEB analysts Mark Van Buren and Jean Martin discuss how to overcome the four biggest barriers to transitioning to a Learning Franchise Model.

Overcoming the Barriers to a Learning Franchise Partnership

CEB analysts Mark Van Buren and Jean Martin explain how shifts in how people learn at work require learning executives to think differently about the L&D function. Enter the Learning Franchise.

Build a Learning Franchise to Reduce Wasted Learning

In the previous blog, “Same Ingredients, Different Recipe: Innovating on Performance Goals, Feedback, and Ratings,” we discussed practical ways to evolve goal setting, feedback, and performance ratings for the new work environment. Now, let’s break down the critical factors needed to drive real and lasting behavior change in the organization.__ Effective performance management provides meaningful, real-time feedback and ensures employees have clear expectations, can solve problems, and are coached to achieve their maximum performance levels. However, the promise of performance management can only be realized through three key types of organizational change and learning. First, it is ongoing day-to-day behaviors that lead to performance and engagement, not the formal performance management system steps and process. Second, although managers play a critical role, day-to-day performance involves more than just managers, effective performance management behavior needs to be extended to all colleagues in one’s work network. And third, four behaviors—Inspire, Adapt, Align, and Grow—are the foundation for high performance. Inspire involves linking work to the organization’s mission and its success.Adapt has employees set short-term goals and expectations that flex with changing situations.Align means employees provide and receive regular, informal feedback that praises and course corrects in real timeGrow involves development as part of daily work, leveraging work experiences and others’ expertise Experiential Learning Content Model To embed these types of complex behavior change, organizations find that experiential, on-the-job learning proves far more effective than classroom learning—three times as much, in fact, according to CEB data. What’s more, 70 percent of what employees learn comes from experience, yet 73 percent of the average company’s L&D investment is targeted at formal training. In defense of current practices, on-the-job learning is hard and few organizations know how to approach learning through experience. At the same time, managers and employees often lack the time and expertise needed to gain value from in-work learning. The first solution to the challenge is structure: The employee should articulate what she wants to learn, how it will help the business, and how it will help her career. After laying out the structure, the next step is deliberate, iterative practice. When learners apply new concepts to real work, they discover how they play out across different people and situations, and can adjust their application accordingly. This provides contextualization, personalization, and varied learning experiences essential for deep learning. Along the way, employees should seek feedback from others (managers, peers, direct reports, and so forth) and practice self-reflection, all in an effort to ensure the learning structure is sound and the practice they’re doing is advancing their performance. Good reflection questions include: “What did I learn from this experience?”“How will I apply that to future performance?”“Am I seeing cues of successful learning?”This model—Practice, Feedback, Reflect—is practical, scalable, and hard-wires new performance management behaviors in a way that discrete training events can’t.Bottom line: To succeed in today’s dynamic, complex work environment, it’s critical that companies stop reinventing and overinvesting in formal systems and instead consider how performance management fits into the larger talent management landscape. By treating performance management reform as a change effort, HR teams can best support learning and performance across the organization.We invite you to learn more about high-performance cultures at cebglobal.com.

A Path to Performance Management Reform

In the previous blog, “The Purpose of Performance Management: Redefining Aspiration,” we articulated what goals the performance management approach must accomplish no matter its design. Now, let’s examine how to significantly improve performance management in today’s dynamic, complex work environment.__ There is appetite for performance management reform, but the options can be overwhelming and expensive. CEB has identified the three shifts companies must make to significantly improve performance management that is both scalable and cost-effective: 1) reinventing how performance goals are set, 2) providing ongoing feedback, and 3) recasting performance ratings.  Reinventing Performance Goals Many organizations use cascading goals in an attempt to tie organizational objectives to individual work. But because the cascade is sequential, it’s incredibly time-consuming and the intent of the original goal can get lost. SMART goals are flawed, too. They’re used to ensure all employees make progress against specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound work. But applying a one-size-fits-all rule reduces differentiation among employees and often fails to challenge them. Instead, organizations should have business units and employees set their own goals by “linking up” to the organization’s objectives. This approach avoids having to wait for each level above to complete its cascade and allows for a more direct line of sight between an individual’s goals and the organization’s objectives. Furthermore, keep goals brief, meaningful, sufficiently challenging, and reasonable. Some examples:By X date, launch the webpage advertising the new product.Handle at least X service calls per day, with fewer than Y callbacks for the same problem.Enhance division visibility by publishing an article on X topic by Y date. Providing Ongoing Feedback Many organizations require mid-year performance reviews, hoping that formality will breed accountability. But getting feedback once or twice a year is too infrequent to impact behavior and performance. Additionally, formalized processes are viewed as burdensome and time-consuming and rarely yield performance improvement.  The best companies train managers to provide “teaching-focused” feedback on an ongoing basis. Teaching-focused feedback is delivered informally and provides forward-looking coaching, which gives employees the guidance and structure needed to practice and solidify critical new behaviors in the context of day-to-day work. Here’s an example: “Let’s discuss how the meeting went. What do you think went well? Any lessons learned for the future? What would you do differently next time? I agree, Sam seemed to dominate the conversation—what techniques will you try next time to make things more balanced?” Recasting Performance Ratings CEB research has debunked several key myths associated with performance ratings. First, while many organizations assume that ratings provide the data needed for effective decision making, research shows that there is no correlation between individual performance ratings and business unit performance. The next myth is that employees want to know where they stand relative to peers. But because most employees believe they’re above-average performers, ratings tend to frustrate more than inform. Lastly, employers often assume they must rate every employee’s performance in case of litigation. However, less than five percent of employees in the average organization are poor performers, making extensive documentation for everyone a wasted effort. The question of whether to have performance ratings is complex and requires thoughtful analysis. Ultimately, the problem to solve for is reducing the performance review burden. To do this, the best companies:set challenging but achievable goals, and evaluate the impact of resultsreduce or eliminate documentation for performance that is meeting or exceeding expectations, and eliminate self-assessments altogether as they don’t actually help improve performancechange the annual review from retrospection to a forward-looking career conversation. Formal performance management approaches often undermine the very behaviors that lead to high performance and can pit employees against each other, stifle performance conversations, and even result in manipulation of the system to achieve a particular rating level. Effective performance management provides meaningful, real-time feedback. More importantly, it ensures employees have clear expectations, can solve problems, and are coached to achieve their maximum performance levels. Editor’s note: The next installment of this blog series will discuss how to make and sustain behavior change. You can learn more about high-performance cultures at cebglobal.com.

Search results for 'CEB'

Categories

Refine By