Using staff consultation to improve performance at work
Discussion
Hello all.
A bit of background - I currently work within a public sector organisation (c.100 employees and c.200 volunteers) at a senior level, and one of my responsibilities is to monitor and improve performance and the quality of our service. The organisation is considered to be high-functioning (within the top 10% of comparable services nationally).
One area that I feel could be developed is using staff consultation to identify and improve specific areas of performance. It's not something that we have realised in the past due to a number of factors. When we have organised staff consultations in the past it generally ends up being a 'moaning shop' with the same old vocal minority having a good old whinge - I'm sure that you've all seen this before! Consequently I feel that there are some good ideas out there in the staff group that are not being tapped into.
Additionally my perception is that many staff would balk at the idea of being a part of focus/improvement groups as it is perceived as 'extra work'.
So my questions are - who has implemented or tried to implement something similar, and what lessons have you learnt in terms of what works well and what should be avoided?
Thanks in advance.
A bit of background - I currently work within a public sector organisation (c.100 employees and c.200 volunteers) at a senior level, and one of my responsibilities is to monitor and improve performance and the quality of our service. The organisation is considered to be high-functioning (within the top 10% of comparable services nationally).
One area that I feel could be developed is using staff consultation to identify and improve specific areas of performance. It's not something that we have realised in the past due to a number of factors. When we have organised staff consultations in the past it generally ends up being a 'moaning shop' with the same old vocal minority having a good old whinge - I'm sure that you've all seen this before! Consequently I feel that there are some good ideas out there in the staff group that are not being tapped into.
Additionally my perception is that many staff would balk at the idea of being a part of focus/improvement groups as it is perceived as 'extra work'.
So my questions are - who has implemented or tried to implement something similar, and what lessons have you learnt in terms of what works well and what should be avoided?
Thanks in advance.
Honestly I think it's about the approach. I've seen them work as moaning sessions when they are not structured correctly. When they are, you empower the employees to make things better.
e.g. The food in the canteen is rubbish... OK, 1 of you join the committee next time we change supplier
e.g. The locker rooms are broken... someone from the group owns this and takes charge.
If it's approached as a "We moan, management will act" group then this has not worked in my experience.
e.g. The food in the canteen is rubbish... OK, 1 of you join the committee next time we change supplier
e.g. The locker rooms are broken... someone from the group owns this and takes charge.
If it's approached as a "We moan, management will act" group then this has not worked in my experience.
Topgrade everyone. That gets performance up.
Every quarter they each get a grading.
A (top 20%) B (next 20%), C (50%) or D (10%)
A's get good bonus
B's get small bonus
C's get no bonus
D's get immediately compromised out, bye bye
Get two C's in a row and you are history.
It worked well at Barclays Capital.
Edited by Soovy on Friday 30th July 12:19
Soovy said:
Topgrade everyone. That gets performance up.
Every quarter they each get a grading.
A (top 20%) B (next 20%), C (50%) or D (10%)
A's get good bonus
B's get small bonus
C's get no bonus
D's get immediately compromised out, bye bye
Get two C's in a row and you are history.
It worked well at Barclays Capital.
Problem with this approach is that the A's will always be A's, B's maybe ok, but C's get de-moralised. Most people naturally are bracketed like that its human nature, just ranking employees does nothing for performance. Every quarter they each get a grading.
A (top 20%) B (next 20%), C (50%) or D (10%)
A's get good bonus
B's get small bonus
C's get no bonus
D's get immediately compromised out, bye bye
Get two C's in a row and you are history.
It worked well at Barclays Capital.
Edited by Soovy on Friday 30th July 12:19
You need a program to raise performance that addresses individual strengths and weakness. For instance employee A is a great Salesman, but hopeless with the paperwork. How would you rank him? The guy may need training to improve his administration skills.
D's will usually be D's where ever they go, the problems happen when the C's(majority) become D's due to being poorly managed in the first place.
I would be looking at why the vocal minority are feeling so negative about their jobs. For some of them it will be that they hate what they are doing and are only still there because of the pension. But for others the chances are that they do have a bit of a point, and fixing their problems will have a disproportionate impact on the rest of the workforce.
That would work well for group meetings. However I think that for some employees a one to one is better, especially for the shyer ones. If you can find someone they aren't afraid of (maybe get someone floated in from elsewhere for a while, or perhaps see if the union would be willing to hold the meetings and then anonymise the responses for you) people will be a bit more likely to open up.
That would work well for group meetings. However I think that for some employees a one to one is better, especially for the shyer ones. If you can find someone they aren't afraid of (maybe get someone floated in from elsewhere for a while, or perhaps see if the union would be willing to hold the meetings and then anonymise the responses for you) people will be a bit more likely to open up.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff