Accountability
One of the initial motives for building PositiveWare was to create a single environment where a user could increase employee engagement through collaboration, alignment, and accountability.
But to use the Cricket vernacular, accountability is the sticky wicket. Software can’t make a manager hold an employee accountable, it can only create an environment where this is possible. A SMART goal is important, but in the absence of consequences it is probably irrelevant.
I was reminded of this today working with one of our clients. I heard him say, if only I can show this employee what I really want this time (as opposed to the last 5 quarters where the employee was also shown what was really wanted) I know that he will execute.
Well, sorry, it just isn’t so. The software shows in vivid detail what is done and not done. No amount of rationalizing can change the facts. But a manager can rationalize himself out of taking the very serious step of letting the employee go.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
From a friend…
As a Fed, I believe the converse of your hypothesis is true as well. A “carrot” to go with the “stick” so to speak. Under NSPS, we establish our “SMART” goals for the FY. At the end of last FY in my Directorate, over 90% of assigned employees were rated a “3″ out of “5″, regardless who spent more hours in the office or on the road, regardless of whose program overspent or underspent, regardless whether someone had easily obtained SMART goals and who had optimistic SMART goals, etc… Thus, those that put in the extra effort or operated at a higher ‘difficulty level’ were equated with the ‘lowest common denomenator’, a significant demotivator.
Seems to me that many of these systems merely attempt to remove the ‘manager’ from his responsibilities.
But as we used to say in the EOD world (with the ultimate performance accountability - as you inevitably had make that lonely walk to the suspect IED in a bombsuit made by the lowest bidder,) it always comes down to the man and the bomb!