Reviewsnap, the leading cloud-based performance management software solution, today announced the launch of its bold new brand.
A key component of Reviewsnap’s new image is its new brand mantra, “All together now.”
“Reviewsnap’s performance management system is ideal for companies that want to get everyone on the same page,” said Dave Arringdale, Reviewsnap president. “That mission is reflected in our new brand mantra. We are here to truly help, not just to provide a service.”
“At Reviewsnap, we believe performance management software needn’t be overly complex or difficult to use. The simple and intuitive layout we’ve designed in our new website reflects our belief that functional simplicity creates a very positive experience for our clients,” Arringdale said. The bold design elements in the company’s new website and logo similarly support Reviewsnap’s image as a market leader for performance management software solutions.
“What hasn’t changed at Reviewsnap is its deep commitment to excellence in understanding and serving clients at the highest level through genuine customer service and support,” Arringdale said.
As part of its heritage, Reviewsnap aims to build a true and trusting partnership with every client. “At its origins, the Reviewsnap system was developed based on feedback we solicited from the customers we would ultimately serve — human resource professionals, business consultants, managers and executives,” said Arringdale.
Reviewsnap used this unique insight to develop a complete, fully automated performance management system that offers user-friendly, reliable and affordable on-demand Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions that help companies:
· Align goals for greater results
· Enhance communication and coaching
· Increase employee engagement
· Save time and money with improved efficiency
“Our customers run the gamut, from very small to very large companies,” Arringdale said. “They all look to us for high-quality, on-demand human resource and business services solutions. We know we have to provide the most versatile and robust performance management solutions possible — and we do that while keeping our prices affordable and our customer service top-notch.”
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Stay Current With Journal Entries For Employees
Recently we wrote about recent activity bias (recency effect). This occurs when the reviewer places too much emphasis on what the employee has done of late and fails to account for performance over the entire review period.
This is often the result of human nature, but it can be caused by a lack of information or the inability to remember specific actions or events. One aspect of performance management that is critical to helping to offset recent activity bias, but too often overlooked is ongoing documentation of employee performance. There is nothing magical about documenting performance and it is really a simple matter of memorializing specific things the employee has done or not done as they occur.
Challenges many managers have when it comes time to create a review include not remembering key performance events and not having appropriate documentation to support ratings. By creating journal entries specific to performance events as they occur, the manager has a wealth of notes to use when crafting the review.
Sound performance management systems include journaling tools that allow the creation of such notes and they provide reminders to managers so they are not forgetting to take the time to document performance. When journaling isn't done enough or at all the quality of the review can suffer.
Taking the time to document things as they happen will help reduce angst about creating a review because the documentation provides a sound basis for ratings and comments. Managers will feel better about the completed review and the review session will be more fulfilling for both the manager and the employee.
This is often the result of human nature, but it can be caused by a lack of information or the inability to remember specific actions or events. One aspect of performance management that is critical to helping to offset recent activity bias, but too often overlooked is ongoing documentation of employee performance. There is nothing magical about documenting performance and it is really a simple matter of memorializing specific things the employee has done or not done as they occur.
Challenges many managers have when it comes time to create a review include not remembering key performance events and not having appropriate documentation to support ratings. By creating journal entries specific to performance events as they occur, the manager has a wealth of notes to use when crafting the review.
Sound performance management systems include journaling tools that allow the creation of such notes and they provide reminders to managers so they are not forgetting to take the time to document performance. When journaling isn't done enough or at all the quality of the review can suffer.
Taking the time to document things as they happen will help reduce angst about creating a review because the documentation provides a sound basis for ratings and comments. Managers will feel better about the completed review and the review session will be more fulfilling for both the manager and the employee.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Employees Taking Advantage of The Recency Effect
Employees can be quite cunning when it comes to performance reviews. We've all seen the employee who slacks off during much of the year and then some weeks prior to their review being done, they really pick things up and work harder or become more effective.
Recent activity bias (often called recency effect) is more common during performance reviews than we might imagine. Managers see the improved work effort and/or quality and when it comes time to do the review, it tends to stand out in their mind more than the less than acceptable work done during the earlier part of the review period. This can result in higher ratings and more positive comments than the employee actually earned.
Have you ever had an employee who didn't perform all that well during much of a review period, turned it on at some point later during that period of time and then, once the review was completed, crept back into old habits? It's likely we've all observed this type of behavior.
As a manager responsible for reviewing employees, it's important to remember that the performance review covers the entire review period. Astute managers can usually discern between improved performance based on coaching, training, or a legitimate desire to get better versus a late run to enhance performance ratings and comments.
Ask yourself if the employee showed gradual improvement over the course of the review period as coaching and training took place or if there was a sudden sharp spike later in the review period. What type of improvement took place? Did the employee focus on the one key area he/she knew had been an issue and tweak behavior accordingly? Or was there improvement on a broader basis?
If you believe the employee truly had made a conscious and legitimate effort to improve performance over a period of time, particularly after being coached and/or undergoing additional training, they ratings should reflect those legitimate efforts. If, however, you believe that the improvement was too little, too late, avoid letting the recent behavior influence your ratings and comments too much.
For any employee showing improvement, that change in work behavior should be recognized. But be very careful to rate the employee on the entire "body of work", so to speak. Let them know that there has been noticeable improvement, but send the very clear message that it is important to sustain the improvement and continue to focus on improving.
If you rate an employee too high based on very recent efforts and ignore the inadequate work efforts prior to the recent behavior, the employee will feel they can get into a pattern of slacking early in the review period and then working harder later on. As you prepare a review, think about the entire review period and take the employee's efforts and results into account for the complete period. This will help avoid recent activity bias and provide a much better feedback mechanism for the employee.
Recent activity bias (often called recency effect) is more common during performance reviews than we might imagine. Managers see the improved work effort and/or quality and when it comes time to do the review, it tends to stand out in their mind more than the less than acceptable work done during the earlier part of the review period. This can result in higher ratings and more positive comments than the employee actually earned.
Have you ever had an employee who didn't perform all that well during much of a review period, turned it on at some point later during that period of time and then, once the review was completed, crept back into old habits? It's likely we've all observed this type of behavior.
As a manager responsible for reviewing employees, it's important to remember that the performance review covers the entire review period. Astute managers can usually discern between improved performance based on coaching, training, or a legitimate desire to get better versus a late run to enhance performance ratings and comments.
Ask yourself if the employee showed gradual improvement over the course of the review period as coaching and training took place or if there was a sudden sharp spike later in the review period. What type of improvement took place? Did the employee focus on the one key area he/she knew had been an issue and tweak behavior accordingly? Or was there improvement on a broader basis?
If you believe the employee truly had made a conscious and legitimate effort to improve performance over a period of time, particularly after being coached and/or undergoing additional training, they ratings should reflect those legitimate efforts. If, however, you believe that the improvement was too little, too late, avoid letting the recent behavior influence your ratings and comments too much.
For any employee showing improvement, that change in work behavior should be recognized. But be very careful to rate the employee on the entire "body of work", so to speak. Let them know that there has been noticeable improvement, but send the very clear message that it is important to sustain the improvement and continue to focus on improving.
If you rate an employee too high based on very recent efforts and ignore the inadequate work efforts prior to the recent behavior, the employee will feel they can get into a pattern of slacking early in the review period and then working harder later on. As you prepare a review, think about the entire review period and take the employee's efforts and results into account for the complete period. This will help avoid recent activity bias and provide a much better feedback mechanism for the employee.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Are You Measuring What Counts?
Employees need to understand what is important for them to focus on in the course of doing their jobs. That is an obvious observation.
But are the selected competencies really the most critical relative to the focus employees will place on them? In other words, will focusing on those competencies help optimize contribution to team and organizational success? Sometimes the competencies selected for measuring performance don't match the most critical elements of the job.
It helps to start with an "inventory" of the critical aspects of the job. What are the most important things involved in doing the job on a daily basis? Starting there helps easily create a list of the most crucial competencies that should be used to build performance review templates used in the review process.
Failing to identify these competencies can lead to a misplaced focus on what is really important. For example, suppose developing relationships with outside parties is a critical part of the job, but that competency shows up nowhere on the review form. The problem with not including it is that even though the employee may know he/she must do this as part of his/her job, they are not being measured against that competency. That sends a message that it may not be as important as it should be.
The point here is that you don't want to take a haphazard approach to selecting competencies. Obviously a number of competencies will cut across many or most jobs. But for some jobs, there are key competencies that the employee must be measured against.
Take a look at your various jobs and make certain the appropriate competencies are being included as part of the review process. The performance of your employees depends on measurement and measuring the proper job elements is a significant contributor to potential success.
But are the selected competencies really the most critical relative to the focus employees will place on them? In other words, will focusing on those competencies help optimize contribution to team and organizational success? Sometimes the competencies selected for measuring performance don't match the most critical elements of the job.
It helps to start with an "inventory" of the critical aspects of the job. What are the most important things involved in doing the job on a daily basis? Starting there helps easily create a list of the most crucial competencies that should be used to build performance review templates used in the review process.
Failing to identify these competencies can lead to a misplaced focus on what is really important. For example, suppose developing relationships with outside parties is a critical part of the job, but that competency shows up nowhere on the review form. The problem with not including it is that even though the employee may know he/she must do this as part of his/her job, they are not being measured against that competency. That sends a message that it may not be as important as it should be.
The point here is that you don't want to take a haphazard approach to selecting competencies. Obviously a number of competencies will cut across many or most jobs. But for some jobs, there are key competencies that the employee must be measured against.
Take a look at your various jobs and make certain the appropriate competencies are being included as part of the review process. The performance of your employees depends on measurement and measuring the proper job elements is a significant contributor to potential success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
