3. Ejecución de las obras
3.20. Fabricación de hormigones
There are several challenges associated with using individual objec- tives as the basis for performance management.2
Inconsistency among managers can result in objectives that are too easy, unattainable, or unsystematic across individuals who occupy the same job.3,4 If managers are not trained to set objectives of similar
diffi culty and complexity for employees in the same job, one employ- ee’s objective could be to perform a simple data collection task, while another’s in the same job could be to manage the design and imple- mentation of a complex program evaluation process. If the overall impact and contribution of the results associated with these different objectives are not considered, the employee who executed a simple data collection task could be considered as performing equivalently to the employee who implemented a complex program evaluation process, simply because they both achieved their objectives. Thus, a key challenge is ensuring that fair, equitable, and job relevant objec- tives are set for all employees.
In highly routine and predictable jobs, it is sometimes possible to predefi ne a set of objectives that apply uniformly to all employees. This not only saves time that would otherwise be spent by each manager and staff member developing individual objectives, but it also ensures that all employees in the same job are held accountable for the same expectations and standards. When identical objectives apply to everyone in a job, job analysis procedures like those dis- cussed in Chapter 6 can be used to defi ne these, ensuring their job relevance.
In many jobs, the objectives for different employees vary signifi - cantly, depending on the nature of the individual’s duties and assign- ments. When it is not possible to use the same objectives for all employees, it is best to have supervisors develop individual objectives from validated tasks or work behaviors that have been identifi ed for the job. The objectives will need to contain more specifi c information than the tasks or work behaviors (e.g., what specifi c project, cus- tomer, product, etc. the employee is responsible for), as well as spe- cifi c quality, quantity, and timeliness expectations. However, by
• Inconsistency among man- agers can result in objectives that are too easy, unattain- able, or wildly different in their diffi culty for individu- als in the same job
• Objectives need to be within the employees’ control to achieve and not dependent on things they can’t control • It is diffi cult to evaluate the
relative contribution of the myriad of results that differ- ent employees deliver • Setting concrete objectives
in advance can be diffi cult
for jobs where the work is fl uid and unpredictable • Setting individual objectives
is not appropriate if work is so interdependent or team based that individual results cannot be clearly identifi ed; in these situations, it is more appropriate to set objectives at the team or group level • Managers and employees
need to be prepared to make adjustments to objec- tives during the rating period as the situation or priorities change
Good to Know:
starting with a list of validated tasks or work behaviors, the objectives developed for each employee can be linked to valid job content. As objectives are defi ned for employees holding similar or identical jobs, they can be compiled and reviewed across managers. This helps to ensure that similarly diffi cult and complex objectives are being set for individuals in the same job and level.
Case Scenario:
Leveraging Objectives
A
fter objectives were written for individuals occupying each job in a political organization, they were catalogued and stored in a database. This made it possible for managers and employees to search the database for objectives that might be relevant to different employees’ jobs. They were then able to use the already developed objectives as a starting point and edit them to be customized for other employees. Over time, this resulted in increasing levels of consistency in the objectives that were devel- oped for employees in similar jobs.Even if training and examples are provided to help managers develop objectives, they will still be at least somewhat unique to each employee, in most cases. An issue then becomes how to evaluate the relative contribution of the myriad of results that different employees deliver. Given that some employees deliver higher impact results than others, it would not be fair to consider all employees who achieve their objectives as performing the same. An effective strategy that has been used in several public and private sector organizations to address this issue is to develop standards for evaluating the relative contribu- tion of different results, in addition to evaluating whether or not timeliness, quality, quantity, or fi nancial measures were achieved. The use of individual performance objectives without this additional evaluation fails to differentiate between employees who are contrib- uting more or less and for differentially rewarding them.5 An example
Another challenge is that setting concrete objectives in advance can be diffi cult for jobs that are unpredictable or constantly changing.6,7
Consider the challenges in trying to develop specifi c objectives for R&D jobs where it is impossible to predict when meaningful discov- eries will occur. An effective strategy for these types of jobs is to set shorter-term objectives that are more predictable. Feedback can be given and interim appraisals conducted as employees reach key mile- stones during the rating period. In fact, given the fl uid nature of many work environments, some experts have advocated not even trying to set longer-term objectives, claiming that this is an exercise in futility, and instead recommended that the focus be on setting shorter-term objectives as the work evolves.
A fi nal challenge in setting objectives occurs when it is diffi cult to associate outcomes with a specifi c person’s effort, because the work is team-focused or requires signifi cant interdependence with others. In these circumstances, objectives should be set at the level where the key work products are produced. If jobs are so intertwined or depend- ent on a team, it may not be practical or appropriate to set individual objectives. Instead, objectives should be set at the higher group or team level.
Example:
Performance Standards for Evaluating Overall Contribution of Results
Low Impact Moderate Impact High Impact Result was
straightforward to accomplish and had a small impact on business results. Result had a positive impact on effi ciency or effectiveness of operations. Result had an extremely positive impact, producing signifi cant cost reductions or profi t increases.