Here is bucket of cold water that I hope will wake you
up. If you prefer coffee – here is a hot
Starbucks Café Latte Grande to shake you out of the dream you live in and work
in.
I urge you to STOP performing annual reviews for team
members if you want an improved maintenance reliability process.
How many of you have I lost at this point? I can actually see those gears actually turning
in your head at this point: Stop annual reviews? How can we tell if someone did a good job or
a bad job?
I did some research on the group that reads my articles and
I discovered something that totally surprised me.
Half of my readers are above average and the other half is
below average.
Smile. :-)
Maintenance expert Cliff Williams calls it “The Trouble With
Averages”.
These results are going to be the case for any group –
including your own maintenance reliability team.
Effective leaders guide and direct team members to
contribute using the unique strengths that each individual has.
Results come from the processes that the company employees –
not from the people that the company employees.
If the result is based on the people – the process is not
stable.
Performance reviews should be conducted on your processes –
not your people.
Annual reviews that include any aspect of individual
performance naturally sub-optimize a team.
Why sacrifice for the team when I may get ahead if I am viewed as “more
productive” than my co-worker? Why
sacrifice my individual performance for a better process result when I am not
credited for process results?
Can anyone provide me with data that showed how these annual
performance reviews, which are based on the individuals’ results, improve the
process that the individual is working in?
If you want improved results from your maintenance
reliability process – focus on improving the process.
The result comes from the process.
Your process is perfectly designed to deliver the results
you are currently getting.
If you want a novel idea that may improve your processes or
at least make the work environment much better – how about allowing each team
member to review the process they work in (and provide at least 3 ideas to
improve it) and allow them to rate their leaders in a safe and consequence-free
way?
A very good and interesting approach proposed here Terrence. A great article, thank you for sharing.
ReplyDeleteI am a believer in performance reviews, maybe not so much personal reviews but more focused on the results in Reliablity and Availability terms.
I also think that the correct balance of "scorecards" is the correct way to go. This is Process, Personal reviews and any other type of review possible to implement and suits the business.
The problem is finding the correct balance!
The Asset Management profession is always in the realm of shades of grey, it is very rear to find the absolute correct answer or approach for any situation in Asset Management.
Thank you very much for sharing Terrence.
Bjarni - thank you for posting your comments.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that the process is responsible for the outcome - and if you want increased Reliability and increased Availability - you need to improve the processes that deliver them.
Your point about shades of grey being more realistic than black or white illuminates the reality of things that involve people.
Thank you again.