A recent POV Patrick posted was on “Rethinking Innovation” (http://www.tablegroup.com/pat/povs/pov/?id=36). Some highlights I picked up……

At its core, most executives simply want employees to do what they are being asked to do in the most enthusiastic, professional way possible. Is “innovation” really valued? Perhaps at senior levels or within key positions, but it could be just as disruptive if everyone is asked to be “innovative”.

Most organizations need far more people to be dutiful, enthusiastic, and consistent in their work than innovative or creative. Innovation can actually hurt being consistent.

“Creatonomy” – the notion of being creative and autonomous may be a better focus for most contributors within an organization. Being responsible for your work, being great at what you do is more valuable.

“Innovation” must be done within the boundaries of acceptable change, and is a primary focus for senior leadership.

Check out Patrick’s full post on this topic. What do you think?

Organizations have a challenge here:  assess the results of those (changed)  goals via some rating / ranking methodology at the end of the review cycle.

Several issues exist: First, are there corporate wide goals which encompass all departments?  Might there be the sales division goals which relate to the financial department objectives; and are specific to all employees? Not likely.

Second, we all know that priorities change during the year (during the review cycle).  Sometimes there is a significant
change in goals resulting is a change, an add, or a deletion of a goal (or goals) in order to reflect new / changed corporate directions.

So when an organization (department, division, work group) re-aligns such goals is there a corresponding re-alignment of the performance measurement scale? Should organizations follow a bell curve (Likert grouping)  for their appraisal process when measuring goal achievement? Is there a pre-defined process where a specified number of employees are deemed “acceptable” for a particular rating? Is this fair when the goal(s) have been changed, added, deleted during the review period?

It has been suggested for organizations to first conduct the appraisal and then, based on the output, decide the process of  merit allocation.  At the same time, organizations typically communicate merit allocation guidance without promoting the idea of forced ranking – a sublime approach to articulating the bell curve rather than set numbers.

Bottom line is that there are no easy answers.  Perhaps additional training for managers and supervisors on how to adjust the score.  A Likert-type scale may be the best approach here.  Evaluate results according to a subjective criteria with a general assessment to measure a level of agreement or disagreement.

Is this five-level Likert grouping appropriate for the scenario stated above?

1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree

Likert scales like this one will tabulate scores, the purpose of which is to get to a sum total score for each ratee (this would be the rating average).  The intent of using a 5 point Likert is to attain a fair assessment when corporate goals are rated at the end of the review cycle.  Is this fair?

Comments?