Showing posts with label Performance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Performance. Show all posts

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Corporate Theatre

I have learnt the concept of training during my post-graduation course and have implemented it at various occasions in my work-life. I have also got trained by various methodologies in the last few years. But this was my first exposure to Corporate Theatre and training through the theatre methodology and what a refreshing experience it was...

This was the introduction sheet to the training :

Dress Code: Absolutely Informal. Wear something loose and comfortable that will allow sitting, lying, or rolling on the floor. (Rolling on the floor - was this corporate training or some kid's workshop?) Ladies are advised to avoid Saris as they inhibit free movement.

Bring nothing with you - no notebooks, pads, or pens. Note-taking is strictly forbidden.

Footwear to be left outside the hall. Along with footwear, participants are requested to leave adult personalities, seniority, designations, and hierarchy, outside. Whatever is needed from among these can be retrieved on the way back after the workshop. (I completely loved this statement).

Bring cameras along. You will catch yourselves and each other in amazing postures and costumes and with unbelievable expressions that you may find difficult to replicate afterwards. You will want to preserve them for posterity and show it to parents, spouses, children, and grandchildren down the years. However don't expect them to believe it is YOU !! (This really intrigued my imagination!)

When I read this as a prelude to a training program I was scheduled to attend later in the week, I was sure about one thing : it would not be the conventional training programs that I've been used to.

When I entered the hotel and was ushered to the Training Center, I was surprised to find that there were no chairs, no projectors, laptops - not even a whiteboard or a flip-chart. Instead, there were mattresses and bolsters along the three walls at one end of the hall. All chairs were stacked in one corner. And the participants were stretched out comfortably on the mattresses and bolsters, casually chatting with each other. The atmosphere was warm and if I may add, very homely!

Mr. Paul Mathew, the trainer, came across as someone who was really passionate about theatre and his entire life was dedicated to this sole passion. He emphasized the basic learning principles on which the "Corporate Theatre" methodology is based:

1. Learning happens best in the 'child' state : In the 'adult' state, one has most of the answers, very few questions. Made a lot of sense. Have you heard any kid say / think : What will my mom / dad / teacher / friend think of me if I ask them this question? They are free from the 'looking good' mentality and hence are open to a huge amount of learning - their curiosity for learning and inconsideration towards 'What-Will-Others-Think' attitude, fosters an immense speed , gamut of exposure and assimilation of knowledge. As we grow, we get into a lot of complexities and our inhibitions and ego that we already know so much stop us from asking questions and thus our learning becomes lesser and lesser.

2. No one can train another : The onus is on the learner. Unless the learner chooses to learn, learning does not take place. True, isn't it? Until and unless you want to learn, you may be present at the workshop physically but me mentally absent.

3. One person's knowledge need not be relevant to another : Learning is best when each one gets in touch with their own wisdom. This I completely relate to. The 'Aa-ha' moment comes when a particular point sticks on to you since you can relate to it from your past experiences. The other participants also hear the same lines but they may not get impacted the way you do. And then no amount of note-taking is necessary. It remains with you long after the sessions are done.

4. Transformation is the most immediate and direct result of learning : If there is no transformation, there has been no learning. This sums up any training program. Change and learning are essential to training and if there is positive transformation, even in a small measure, the training has impacted you.




The training was competely an activity based methodology and we did various group tasks, the finale being, using basic artcles like chart paper, bed sheets, felt pens etc, to create a scene which would not have dialogues but we would freeze, on the count, and basis our expressons, arrangement of the props etc, the other groups would have to guess what we were portraying.

My biggest learning out of this workshop was that, a diverse group of people, from various walks of life, can play up to their strengths and keeping their individual ego aside, work with single minded focus so that the team wins. Individuals didn't have to be complete in themselves but the team neede to be, by playing up to each individual's strengths.

Paul stretched this concept of teamwork into the way we use Performance Appraisals in our workplaces.
He stressed on the fact that an incorrect appraisal system could make people compete against each other in an unhealthy way rather than collaborating to work towards team goals.

Differentiation is key in team appraisals, on the lines of what I had discussed in my post 'For Whom the Bell Tolls'. But the process should be such that if the team loses, no one gets rewarded, no matter how well they have individually performed. If the team succeeds in iys objective, everyone gets amply rewarded. And here, the winning team will differentiate its performers into top, middle and bottom.

Over a couple of cycles of appraisal, this will ensure that the Team weeds out the non-committed far more ruthlessly than a 'boss' can do it. Only those who can and want to contribute, are tolerated by a natural Team. When the Team does the rating, there is no perceived unfairness or injustice. It is not one person's appraisal. And unless a Team is 'suicidal' the rating will be ruthlessly fair. If not, they realize that ultimately everyone loses.

As I have said earlier, only a robust Performance Management System can build credibility in the process. There are various ways to differentiate and this is one of the ways.

Saturday, May 16, 2009

For Whom The 'Bell' Tolls



I was working on developing a career management system for my company and in that context was critically evaluating the performance appraisal system as well. One of the most debated ways to assess performance in organizations is the dreaded Bell Curve. Forced ranking assesses employee performance relative to peers rather than against predetermined goals. Managers rank employees into three categories: The top 20 percent are the people who will lead the future of the company. They're given raises, stock options, and training. The middle 70 percent are given smaller raises and encouraged to improve. The bottom 10 percent are contribute the least and may be meeting expectations but are simply "good" on a team of "greats." They're given no raises or bonuses and are either offered training, asked if they'd be happier elsewhere, or fired.

I was reading Jack Welch's Winning and came across this passage on forced rating, bell curve and differentiation (For the uninitiated, Jack Welch, retired Chief Executive Officer of General Electric (GE), is most often associated with forced ranking, since GE used this performance management tool to eliminate the bottom ten percent of performers each year.) :

Differentiation starts right from our school days with our grades and play-ground where the best players get picked first and the least athletic ones watch from the stands. Everyone knows where he/she stands. The top kids want desperately to stay there and continue to get the thrill and respect of winning. the kids in the middle work hard to get better and thus bring up the quality of play. And the kids who couldn't make the cut usually found other pursuits, other sports in which they excelled. this is true on the playground and it is true in business.

When differentiation is working, people know where they stand. Maybe some information is hard to swallow at first but soon enough, knowledge is liberating because when you know where you stand, you can control your destiny.


Differentiation brings out the positive impact of an open, honest management system built on candid performance assessments and aligned rewards. For the top performers, the very existence of a middle cadre gives them yet another reason to pull out all the stops everyday. They have to keep getting better to have a high standing. For the middle performers, the aspiration to get into the top level makes them work harder, think more creatively, share more ideas and overall, fight the good fight everyday.

Now, coming to the detractors of forced ranking, I have heard many say that it is not ethical. My view on this is - any system or process is nether ethical or unethical - it is the implementers who make it so. A lot depends on how fairly the system is developed, and how fair the people are who carry it out.

Forced Ranking may be hard on the under-performers, people who are not dependable, determined or persistent but truth be told, organizations are not charitable set-ups where they are obligated to carry these non-performers with them, on emotional grounds. And more importantly, a laissez-faire attitude where everybody gets an exceptional / very good rating makes the ranking meaningless to employees. Would that not be the case if everyone in a school stood first?

But, having said that, I definitely feel the emphasis should be on the correct way to implement the process. Clear, transparent and honest communication of process and feedback goes a long way in building credibility of the system and its processes. If the Forced Ranking system is a way to make power centers in the organization where those who fall out of favour with the boss / are not 'Yes-Bosses' are chucked out, such a system is doomed to implode. If you don’t give people what they need to perform well and expect them to succeed, if you set a measure to which people should perform and don’t give them the tools to do it, then it is an unfair process, set up for failure and politics to set in. But if the evaluations are carried out in fair ways, and if people know the grounds or expectations on which they are being evaluated, it could be a reasonable way to reward growth and ability and to cull unpromising or under performing employees.