Tag Archives: Marcus Buckingham

Diverse Teams Analyze Problems More Effectively

When people anticipate working with people similar to themselves, they process information less effectively than when they anticipate collaborating with diverse co-workers.

Denise Lewin Loyd

Denise Lewin Loyd

Volunteers completed a survey about their political attitudes, read a murder mystery, determined the perpetrator, and rated their confidence in their conclusion in a study designed by MIT’s Denise Lewin Loyd, Cynthia S. Wang of Oklahoma State University, Columbia’s Katherine Phillips  and Robert Lount Jr. of Ohio State University.

Participants then wrote a statement about their conclusions before meeting another volunteer who had a different conclusion about the perpetrator to solve the case.

Cynthia Wang

Cynthia Wang

They learned the other person’s political affiliation and opinion about the murder and wrote their statements but were told the experiment was over, without meeting the other person.

Loyd’s team analyzed these preparation statements to determine “elaboration,” a measure of analysis complexity and depth, when people anticipated working with others who have different attitudes.

Katherine Phillips

Katherine Phillips

People who said they were members of any political party wrote less-detailed statements when they anticipated meeting with someone affiliated with the same political party.
In contrast, participants wrote more detailed statements when they anticipated meeting someone of a different political orientation.

Volunteers prepared less carefully when they anticipated working with someone who shared their views.
In contrast, when they expected to work with someone holding different views, they applied greater critical thinking to their problem analyses.

Robert B Lount Jr

Robert B Lount Jr

Some volunteers were instructed before preparing their written case analysis that developing a positive interpersonal relationship with the other person would increase solution accuracy.

Other participants learned that “concentrating on the task rather than the interpersonal relationship was most important way to have a productive meeting.”

People primed to focus on their interpersonal relations wrote less detailed preparation statements, suggesting that analytic rigor was sacrificed for interpersonal harmony.
In addition, when people were primed to focus on the task, they produced more thoroughly considered solutions.

When volunteers actually met to solve the case after writing their statements,
partners with the most accurate solutions came to the meeting with most detailed case analyses.

People in homogeneous groups may prepare less completely if they focus on cultivating interpersonal harmony and avoiding conflict.
In contrast, diverse groups may not attempt to form close social relationships, so are more able to focus on task analysis and solutions.
Diverse teams, then, provide multiple perspectives and greater focus on shared work tasks.

Ron Elsdon

Ron Elsdon

However, other researchers advocate workplace affiliation as a way to engage and retain employees.
Ron Elsdon, formerly of Cambridge University and Air Liquide America, suggested that workplace affiliation leads to organizational value creation, and Gallup’s Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman argued that “having a best friend at work” is both important for employee engagement and “one of the most controversial of the 12 traits of highly productive workgroups.”

Marcus Buckingham

Marcus Buckingham

Social relationships among similar people at work may feel good, but may not lead to the most effective or innovative problem analysis.

-*To what extent have you observed homogeneous work groups focusing on maintaining harmony at the expense of rigorous task analysis?

Curt Coffman

Curt Coffman

RELATED POSTS:


Follow-share-like http://www.kathrynwelds.com and @kathrynwelds  

Twitter  @kathrynwelds
Blog – Kathryn Welds | Curated Research and Commentary  
Google+
LinkedIn Open Group Psychology in Human Resources (Organisational Psychology)
Facebook Notes:

©Kathryn Welds

Reinventing Performance Management to Reduce Bias: Strengths, Future Focus, Frequent Feedback

Steven Scullen

Steven Scullen

Most performance management systems set goals at the beginning of the year and determine variable compensation by rating accomplishment of those objectives.

These evaluations typically are considered in lengthy “consensus meetings” in which managers discuss the performance of hundreds of people in relation to their peers – sometimes called “stack ranking,” or more cynically “rank-and-yank.”

Michael Mount

Michael Mount

These year-end ratings don’t provide “in-the-moment” and “real-time” feedback about actual performance as it happens, so may be less useful in improving performance.

Assessing skills produces inconsistent data based on raters’ own skills in that competency and the value they attach to each performance objective, leading to unconscious bias.

Maynard Goff

Maynard Goff

This risk to performance rating validity was demonstrated by Drake University’s Steven Scullen, Michael Mount of University of Iowa, and Korn Ferry’s Maynard Goff, who considered 360 degree performance evaluations by two bosses, two peers, and two subordinates for nearly 4500 managers.

They found that three times as much rating variance was explained by individual raters’ idiosyncratic evaluation choices, rather than actual performance.

Manual London

Manual London

Sources of bias include halo error, leniency error, and organizational perspective based on current role, suggested by SUNY’s Manuel London and James Smither of LaSalle University, and validated by Scullen’s team.

These findings led the researchers to conclude “Most of what is being measured by the ratings is the unique rating tendencies of the rater. Thus ratings reveal more about the rater than they do about the ratee,” replicating similar findings by University of Georgia’s Charles Lance, Julie LaPointe and Amy Stewart.

Ashley Goodall

Ashley Goodall

To mitigate these biases in Deloitte’s performance management system, Ashley Goodall of Deloitte Services LP engaged Marcus Buckingham, formerly of The Gallup Organization, to analyze existing practices and develop an empirically-validated approach.

Goodall and Buckingham calculated the total annual hours required to conduct performance ratings using the existing process and found that managers invested 2 million hours a year.
This finding confirmed that one goal in revising the process was to increase speed and efficiency.

Marcus Buckingham

Marcus Buckingham

In addition, Goodall and Buckingham sought to increase the meaningfulness of performance management by focusing on discussions about future performance and careers rather than on the appraisal process.

They concluded a performance management system should be characterized by:

  • Reliable performance data, controlling for idiosyncratic rater effects,
  • Speed to administer,
  • Ability to recognize performance,
  • Personalization: “One-size-fits-one”,
  • Considering actions to take in response to data,
  • Continuous learning and improvement.

Deloitte logoDeloitte conducted a separate controlled study of 60 high-performing teams including almost 1300 employees representing all parts of the organization compared with an equal number of employees from an equivalent sample to determine questionnaire items that differentiate high- and lower-performing teams.

They found that performance and related compensation allocations could be more accurately based on managers’ statements about their intended future actions toward each employee rather than asking about team members’ skills.

Several items accounted for the vast majority of response variation between top performing groups and others, particularly At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.”

Now Discover Your StrengthsBusiness units whose employees said they “strongly agree” with this item were substantially more likely to be more productive, earn high customer satisfaction scores, and experience low employee turnover.

Other powerful predictors of performance were:

  • I have the chance to use my strengths every day,
  • My coworkers are committed to doing quality work,
  • The mission of our company inspires me.

Deloitte’s revised performance management system asks team leaders to rate four items on a 5-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” or yes-no at the end of every project or once a quarter:

  • Given what I know of this person’s performance, and if it were my money, I would award this person the highest possible compensation increase and bonus [measures overall performance and unique value],
  • Given what I know of this person’s performance, I would always want him or her on my team [measures ability to work well with others],
  • This person is at risk for low performance [identifies problems that might harm the customer or the team],
  • This person is ready for promotion today [measures potential].

These responses provide a performance snapshot that informs but doesn’t completely determine compensation.
Other factors include project assignment difficulty and contributions other than formal projects, evaluated by a leader who knows each individual personally or by a group considering data across several groups.

In addition, every team leader prioritizes once-weekly “check-ins” with each employee to ensure that priorities are clear and progress toward them is consistent.

Strengthfinder 2.0

Strengthfinder 2.0

Goodall and Buckingham opined that “radically frequent check-ins are a team leader’s killer app to recognize, see, and fuel performance,” in addition to using a self-assessment tool that identifies each team members’ strengths and enables sharing with teammates, team leader, and the organization.

These three “interlocking rituals” of the weekly check-in, quarterly or project-end performance snapshot, and annual compensation decision enable a shift from retrospective view of performance to more “real-time” coaching to support performance planning and enhancement.

Deloitte’s approach seeks a “big data“ view of each person’s organizational performance and contribution rather than the “simplicity” of a small data view summarized in a single stack-rank number.

-*How do you develop a “Big Data” view of people’s performance?

-*How do you enable continuous, “in-the-moment” performance feedback instead of once-a-year retrospective view?

Follow-share-like http://www.kathrynwelds.com and @kathrynwelds

Related Posts:

Twitter:  @kathrynwelds
Google+
LinkedIn Groups Psychology in Human Resources (Organisational Psychology)
Facebook
Blog: – Kathryn Welds | Curated Research and Commentary

©Kathryn Welds