Case Number 1: When a Bad Fit is a Good Thing
Case Number 2: The New Role of the Manager
Case Number 3: Good Enough Never Is
Case Number 4: And the Truth Shall Set You Free
Case Number 5: Managing in the Real World
Case Number 6: Seven Reasons Why the Environment Assessment Works for Interventions
Case Number 7: Building Successful Partnerships
Case Number 8: The Job-Person Match - A Strategic Tool in Sales Force Effectiveness Initiatives
Case Number 9: Communication and the Job Consensus
Case Number 10: "Hello, is Everybody Ready?" Tropicana
Case Number 11: The JPEA™ In Action: Staffing Resources for Law Firms and Law…
Case Number 12: Assessing an Organization's Readiness for Change
Case Number 13: Negotiating Results and Support -- The Basis for an Energized, Accountable and Self Managed Workforce
Case Number 1: When a Bad Fit is a Good Thing
I facilitated a team that faced a two-fold challenge: One was an ever-present challenge of effectively communicating with each other. The second was a general lack of understanding about differences in preferred behaviors. Of course, people knew that others in the group were different from them, but they thought it was a “personality” thing.
The JPEA™ helped to give each person language for discussing differences without being judgmental. They could talk about preferred behaviors instead of “how someone is.” It gave them the same frame of reference to see how others, who are very different, are able to accomplish the same quality and quantity of work in a different way.
The Job-Person Match helped people to see where their jobs were comfortable for them and where they weren’t. Some individuals told me that they purposely chose their position because they knew it would cause them to grow in certain areas. Therefore, they were not surprised at the differences noted on the Job-Person Match and saw the “lack of fit” as a good thing.
After each team member received their individual feedback, we then met as a group. The whole team was very positive about the whole experience with the JPEA™. As I mentioned before, it gave them a common language, free from judgments, to use in discussing differences, helped them to see others who are very different as being able to accomplish the same quality and quantity of work in a different way. They noted instances where it is good to have people with different preferences on the same team.
It is important to remember that people tolerate discomfort in their jobs for a variety of reasons. It is not always undesirable to have a “bad fit” in a job. A skilled JPEA™ practitioner can help an individual see when a bad Job-Person match has the potential to be a stepping-stone towards growth.
Back to Top
Case Number 2: The New Role of the Manager
For most of the last decade, people in organizations tried, with varying degrees of success, to redefine "management." The popular approaches were re-engineering, downsizing, right-sizing, etc. We even tried self-directed or self-managed work teams, "flat" organizational structures, etc. What we DIDN'T do was help those who were in management positions to redefine their roles. This, I believe, is the most glaring organization or staff development failure of the period.
As these changes were occurring, many managers were asking themselves the question, "If I don't manage my people anymore, what IS my job...what value do I contribute?" After all, "management work" has been traditionally perceived as a process of directing and controlling the efforts of people and watching them to make sure they do the right things and do them in the right way. In the new world, the manager's primary role is inspiring, enabling, coaching, supporting and managing relationships with his/her staff. Add to that the fact that he/she is also expected to manage the non-human resources like finances, facilities and equipment, information, and the impact of new technology, market forces, government regulations, etc. It's clear that these roles require different behaviors if the manager has any real chance of success in this "new world order."
Once we settle on a new functional role for managers...that is, WHAT they're expected to do...we need to define the behavioral role...or HOW they're expected to do it. It is not a big stretch to see that the behaviors required to be successful in the emerging management role are likely to be quite different from those needed to be successful in the more traditional role. My consulting experience tells me that when comparing the behavioral expectations for managers with their preferred behaviors, there are many who do not have the "heart" for this new role. They never signed on to do this "new-wave stuff."
It will take the help of skilled leadership and/or management development practitioners to help organizations overcome this dilemma. To be successful, the result must be a comprehensive description of the managers' role so that they can identify and acquire the support they will need to meet the challenges they will most surely face on the road to successful performance.
Back to Top
Case Number 3: Good Enough Never Is
Early last year, I had the opportunity to provide group JPEA™ feedback to the staff of an administrative support/finance division for a Sheriff's Department. The interesting thing about this "gig" was that in this division, morale was high, and the people on staff had a positive view toward the organization and each other. There was no one trying to "implode the organization," nor was there any staff member there who was trying to ride the horse in the opposite direction from which it's headed (you know you'll fall of the horse if you try to do that).
In previous JPEA™ consulting jobs, I was usually called in because there was either low morale, some serious job-person match issues, or the manager was still shining his or her shoes with a brick and a Hershey bar. Going into this team building workshop where everyone was positive - well, as a consultant, I thought I was stealing their dough. This was fun! Actually, there were some job-person match issues among some staff members. However, even with some "gaps," each staff member seemed to be genuinely feeling good about their jobs. This group was very open about sharing their "statistically significant" differences. The manager was very open in sharing her JPEA™ results, and the group talked about ways they could improve on the excellence that already existed.
The point that needs to be emphasized is that it is just as important to use the JPEA™ technology in environments that are healthy and where people feel good about their jobs. The JPEA™ helped validate and put in objective words some of the positive things that this group was already doing. This manager - I should say leader - was not satisfied with resting on her laurels or having staff rest on theirs. The JPEA™ exercise and discussion helped to provide validation and further insight for this manager and her staff to "improve on their last, best efforts."
Back to Top
Case Number 4: And the Truth Shall Set You Free
The truth shall set you free, but first it will tick you off. Well ... it won't always tick you off, but for those who hold on to "the comfort of opinion to avoid the discomfort of thought," the JPEA™ will be helpful. The JPEA™ gives an honest response to those who give honest answers to the questions it poses. It provides a path for self-discovery without making people feel "wrong" or "bad" for the behavioral preferences they hold, or for the perceptions they have about work or the work environment.
When any organization is seeking to assess the situation within, the JPEA™ offers the following opportunities:
Individuals and organizations can make informed choices about creating their future.
Back to Top
Case Number 5: Managing in the Real World
We don't manage people, we manage relationships. People manage themselves, they choose their own behaviors. Managers create the environment in which people choose to join with them in meeting the goals of the organization.
We don't do business with organizations, we do business with people. All successful business interactions depend on relationships with people within those organizations.
The failure of all relationships is the failure of expectations. No matter what the relationship, we have certain expectations about what we need or want from that relationship or that person. If we assume that the other person knows what those expectations are without communicating them, our assumption may lead to disappointment and conflict.
Assumption is the parent of all mistakes. The only way to clarify expectations and assumptions is to communicate them, openly, honestly, and with respect and trust, accepting that they cannot be met unless they are understood.
Communication involves listening as well as speaking. Listening with empathy requires respecting another's knowledge, opinions, perspective and integrity, even when you hold a different point of view.
It is commitment, not authority, that gets results. It is the manager's responsibility to develop relationships and communicate a vision of excellence that pulls rather than pushes others to join with that vision and that manager in achieving desired results.
It is the employee's relationship to the manager rather than the task that most affects employee performance. Employees become vested in the success of managers they respect and who respect them as partners in meeting the goals of the organization.
All employees want to be treated with respect and dignity. They also want their concerns and issues to be respected, even if they may seem insignificant to others.
All employees want to be treated with equity and fairness. Employees know the difference between fair treatment and "equal" treatment. They recognize that while things may look the same from the outside, fairness may require different treatment for similar behavior based on individual circumstances.
No performance problem that is ignored gets better on its own. The only way people know that their performance is unacceptable is to be told--with courage and compassion--in specific terms which describe, rather than characterize, the behaviors which need to be changed. Take care of problems while they are small and correctable.
We don't manage time; we manage our priorities within the time we have available to us. Choosing the right priorities will determine our success and whether we have squandered or invested our time. Know which activities are most important to the mission and goals of the organization.
How we spend our time communicates our priorities to others. Employees pay attention to the things managers do and make judgments about what is important to them based on where and how they spend their time.
Back to Top
Case Number 6: Seven Reasons Why the Environment Assessment Works for Interventions
When working with a client, it is helpful for them to understand how using the Environment Assessment can be effective in defining organizational needs and objectifying organizational issues. Most people quickly grasp the benefits of the instrument when the following seven points are shared with them:
1. It objectifies the problems
2. It enables individuals to focus on and attack the problems, not each other
3. The instrument language describes rather than characterizes
4. It creates a visual picture that people can relate to their own experience
5. It diagnoses rather than prescribes
6. It gives validity to "intuitive knowledge"
7. It de-mystifies systems
Back to Top
Case Number 7: Building Successful Partnerships
Every relationship in a business situation does not have to be a partnership to be considered successful. So, when does it make sense to form this special kind of relationship? Over the years, I have decided that if we can say "Yes" to the following five questions, partnership is the kind of relationship we should pursue:
Can you say "Yes" to these five criteria? If so, then it's worth it to put forth the effort it takes to develop this special kind of relationship. Imagine what organizations would be like if everyone made a choice to become partners on these terms! For those who do make this choice, the benefits are truly impressive. It creates a new energy, a new focus, and a new passion for collaboration that is not likely to exist otherwise.
Back to Top
Case Number 8: The Job-Person Match - A Strategic Tool in Sales Force Effectiveness Initiatives
Many organizations today are seeking innovative approaches to enhance the effectiveness of their selling organizations in the face of continually changing market conditions. One such organization was a client of ours based in Canada. The company was a medical products manufacturer facing significant change in their industry due to the impact of such factors as consolidation of hospitals and new government reimbursement restrictions on medical goods and services. The customer was changing from a "clinical expert" to a "business manager."
These significant business changes required the sales representatives to modify their work style; to work differently with the customer and to work differently with their own regional and national sales team. The sales representative role was becoming more specialized around product segmentation and required multiple representatives to call on the same customer. This structural configuration was demanding sales reps to hone new skills and competencies as they engaged in strategic sales "partnering" to meet the changing customer.
Historically in this company, when adjustments became necessary, the senior sales and general management team would hold a national sales meeting and present the changing conditions. Regional sales teams would then develop business strategies to address the changes but little attention was given to the individual sales representative and how he/she was prepared to meet the new job parameters. During these times of business transition, sales typically declined and the sales force experienced high levels of stress, demodulation and turnover.
This time, the General Manager (GM) wanted to approach the changes in a different way. The GM wanted sales to remain stable and the team to be energized by the change. We recommended that as part of the forthcoming sales meeting, we utilize the Job-Person Match (JPM) as a basis for the sales rep to better understand themselves, how they matched with the changed job requirements, and how they related to other representatives with whom they would partner for future sales calls.
The outcome of using the JPM was extremely positive. The sales force responded positively to use of a quantitative tool as part of an organizational effectiveness plan. By using a common language, we were able to help each sales rep understand herself/himself more clearly and how preferences around key components of the job served as enablers or as obstacles to effectiveness with various customers. Furthermore, we evaluated the team as a whole and discussed how similar preference may have served as an asset or liability to overall sales team effectiveness. A particularly enlightening example to the sales reps and their managers was the discovery that over 90% of the sales force fell in the moderately low range for information processing. (Generally at this level, one prefers to consider only a few key pieces of information before making a decision.) When a situational discussion took place about the team's decision making preferences, this tendency toward rapid decision making was acknowledged by the group as a contributing factor to several hastily made decisions that lost sales for the company in the past.
Over the course of the sales meeting, the JPM data was integrated into discussions, planning sessions and group exercises. The JPM not only helped the sales force understand and evaluate themselves, they used it as a tool to better understand customer relationships. Business strategies took into consideration how preferences drive behavior and how behavior impacts effectiveness in a customer relationship.
After the sales meeting, the JPM data was utilized in future regional sales meetings and in general management meetings. Using the JPM as a strategic tool has become routine with this client and it has opened lines of communications between critical strategic business partners within their organization.
In the past 2 years, this company has experienced some of its best sales performance. Turnover is down and morale is up. Clearly, the JPM has the potential to be a highly strategic tool for enhancing the effectiveness of dynamic sales teams.
Back to Top
Case Number 9: Communication and the Job Consensus
Communication is defined as the interchange of thoughts/ideas, opinions, feelings, and information. It is basic to the effective functioning of any organizational unit, no matter how small or large. The inability to communicate effectively is probably the most common cause of dysfunction in organizations and relationships. This led us to design the JPEA™ as a tool to facilitate communication about important work-related issues.
During a Job Consensus session involving a manager and one of his/her direct reports, one can observe an increase in the quality of communication. The increased understanding of both participants about job requirements and allowances is very noticeable. After they reach consensus about the job requirements, the quality of communication reaches an even higher level as they discuss and agree upon those requirements/expectations that are critical to successful performance. In most cases, this is the very first time that they can be sure that they have heard and been heard on the important matter of job requirements and expectations.
For the last several years, I have automatically included the Person-Person Match as a component of the total Job Consensus session. This process focuses on their work style preferences and how similarities and differences manifest themselves within their relationship. By now, they are beginning to better understand and appreciate what preferences and energy each brings to the relationship and how they can use this new insight to their mutual advantage. They are often willing (in fact, eager) to discuss strategies for improving the quality of their relationship and supporting each other as they attempt to meet their challenges.
Practitioners should seize every available opportunity to more fully leverage the advantages that these processes offer. By doing so, we continually test the effectiveness of the JPEA™ in delivering on its promise to facilitate meaningful communication about key issues in today's workplace.
Back to Top
Case Number 10: "Hello, is Everybody Ready?" Tropicana
Tropicana, the world's leading producer of orange juice and related products and the country's oldest not-from-concentrate brand, was stepping up its global plans along with the appointment of a new C.E.O., Myron Roeder. Myron's first actions included a new mission statement and a restructured marketing organization, empowering the company's field managers.
Previously, Tropicana operated with a single profit center approach, but now the regional general managers and their staffs were to have P&L responsibilities. The intent was to make the 3,500 (worldwide) employees of Tropicana more responsive to the customer.
Myron Roeder, concerned that his organization had heard, understood, and was committed to the new direction, called upon Swain & Swain to help him confirm that his people were onboard at the outset so that there would be no surprises as plans went forward. Further, Tropicana's new C.E.O. wanted to develop the most effective communication program that he could, taking into account actual perceptions.
Swain & Swain's first call went to John Perry at Human Productivity Systems to discuss the appropriateness of utilizing the Environment Assessment portion of the JPEA™ as a stand-alone in this situation. While John was initially skeptical, discussions led both of us to realize the potential value of the Environment Assessment given the specific interests of Tropicana's C.E.O.
There were several things about the Environment Assessment that appealed to us all. First, the questions were business-oriented. Secondly, answers could be made on a seven-point scale for more subtle readings. Thirdly, the assessment had a tolerable number of questions (not too many, not too few).
Properly introduced, the Environment Assessment was sent to every salaried employee of the company, from clericals to top management. The response rate of 56% was greater than any previous experience at Tropicana. An unexpected bonus was realized when close to 20% of the respondent’s added comments to amplify their readings on the company's strategy, their sense of commitment at all levels, resources, communications, rewards, and potential for cooperation within the new organizational structure.
Employees were allowed to complete the assessment without identifying themselves in any way, but 80% elected to provide their names, titles, and functional units. Properly coded, this enabled Valerie McIntyre of Human Productivity Systems to provide Swain & Swain with numerous iterations of the submitted data, enabling line executives to request further breakouts of the findings as they dug into the results.
Tropicana's management committee was presented with graphic reports of the findings by functional units and levels (e.g. senior executives, vice presidents, directors, managers, supervisors, individual contributors, and clericals), overall comments and recommendations by Swain & Swain. Discussion was made easier by this convenient display.
There were dramatic conclusions to be drawn from the reported data, and they included:
In the field organization, the results revealed widely different levels of reaction to the new marketing initiatives and allowed for pin-point discussion with senior marketers and remedial efforts within the field units themselves. In many cases, the respondents were more than eager for the opportunity to express concerns, while management could explore their frustrations or misunderstandings. In a number of situations, the findings sparked constructive exchanges within the units as part of the strategy to achieve more open communications.
A further bonus from the Environment Assessment was the detailed profile of reactions to the company's reward system that highlighted the belief that low or non-performance was a greater concern by people in the ranks than anyone in management understood. This followed in part from the previously paternalistic nature of the Tropicana culture that had developed under the company's founder and longtime leader. In effect, the employees were expressing disbelief that the culture would permit or support the type of entrepreneurial spirit that top management was calling for in its new organizational structure. In response, management began to re-examine the company's attrition rate and cash award program.
Overall, the Environment Assessment gained Myron Roeder and his organization an awareness of where each functional unit (by level) was in terms of being committed to the company's new strategy and a priority guide to action on the management committee's part to set things right as the company's growth strategy unfolded in its very competitive marketplace.
Back to Top
Case Number 11: The JPEA™ In Action: Staffing Resources for Law Firms and Law Departments
(Reprinted with permission from "Of Interest" 1995, a publication from Of Counsel Inc., a temporary legal staffing firm in Kansas City, Missouri)
In today's legal work environment of frequent mergers, downsizing and client demands for accountability and personal service, it is imperative for management to make good personnel selections, promotions and case staffing decisions. Many professional service firms have traditionally lacked a formal human resource function. As a result, managing partners have often not been exposed to assessment tools for employee selection and development. In many instances, the old-fashioned methods of hiring and promoting are still trusted and preferred.
The same human resource and economic trends affect law firms as affect their business clients. Law firms should rethink their own human resource systems for managing change. This re-engineering will support the trends toward leaner staffs, new technology and challenging employees who want career fulfillment.
The traditional approach of matching people to jobs begins with a job description, then an individual with the right skills and expertise is sought. The problem with this traditional method is that it only provides part of the picture. By adding the job's behavioral requirements and the person's preferences, the picture is more complete and more meaningful.
Let me illustrate a case in point: A young lawyer prefers a high level of information processing to make decisions. He constantly seeks more information, spends lengthy amounts of time researching and hesitates to delegate to paralegals. His manager may not understand or agree with this work style and determines that this attorney, although gifted in the law, is not going to succeed in the firm.
After using the JPEA™, both could see that the attorney's preferences for low multiple task involvement and for high information processing were impeding his ability to handle his cases expeditiously. A common language was presented, without right or wrong perceptions, which created a better understanding of the job expectations and personal preferences. A job consensus was reached including priorities for research, decision-making, and design of a delegation plan. The result improved communication between the attorney and his manager and created a more behavioral measure as part of his performance review. A simple assessment tool that required no more then two hours to administer, interpret and integrate into the individual's development plan resulted in improved job productivity and personal fulfillment.
The use of the JPEA™ needs to be part of and integrated plan:
There are many behavioral assessment tools on the market, ranging from organizational to candidate selection applications. Some are psychological in nature, measuring personality preferences in general. Others (like the JPEA™) are based on motivation theory and reflect preferences toward work-related situations. A new trend in assessment tools is the 360-degree instrument which gives a person feedback on his/her job skills and behavior from perceptions of peers, subordinates, the supervisor and self.
When selecting a tool, the most important questions to ask are: It is versatile? Is it time and cost-effective? Is it easy to understand and apply? In the 21st century, professional service firms will not have the time or resources to make poor investments in people. Creating the right job-person match will insure their stability and success.
Back to Top
Case Number 12: Assessing an Organization's Readiness for Change
Change is inevitable, and the fuel for change is human energy. If you accept this premise, you will likely accept the fact that it is important to be aware of the level and sources of energy in the organization. The Job Person Environment Assessment™ (JPEA™) produces results that provide that awareness. The analysis of these results provides an assessment of an organization's readiness to initiate and sustain change processes. If an organization has sufficient energy among its employees, it likely will be able to achieve the desired and expected outcomes from a change process.
To determine an organization's readiness for change, it is first necessary to identify the distribution of energy across the organization, and the reasons for this distribution. The sources of energy that the JPEA™ identifies are:
1. The goodness-of-fit between work-style preferences and job demands (Job-Person Match);
2. The level of support that the organizational systems and practices provide (Environment), and;
3. The quality of key interpersonal relationships (Person-to-Person Match between two or more persons).
Identifying the distribution of energy across a work group/team or an entire organization can be accomplished easily by using the JPEA™. Because of its design, the JPEA™ analysis process results in a display of the distribution of energy across three categories:
The JPEA™ analysis process produces the distribution of energy across a group that is directly related to: (1) the goodness-of-fit between group members and their jobs; and (2) the support that they perceive to exist in the organizational environment. Because these results are quantified, they can be used as a baseline against which progress can be measured. Since the analysis process is diagnostic, the results will indicate which actions are most likely to result in desired and expected outcomes. After these actions have been taken, the JPEA™ can be repeated to determine if the level of energy has increased as a result. It will not be long before we are able to correlate quality improvements with energy increases. This will be especially useful in service organizations where ample evidence indicates that service quality is directly related to the energy with which the provider delivers it.
Another key source of energy is interpersonal relationships. It is clear that if we have high quality relationships with others, we will likely seize every opportunity to engage them. When we do, we are often energized by those encounters. On the other hand, if our relationships are strained and don't work very well, we will likely try to minimize the frequency and duration of contact or avoid it altogether, if possible. In most cases, this works to the detriment of our productivity. If the people whom we avoid have the knowledge and skills that we need to access, we will likely miss important opportunities or compromise the quality of our work.
The potential impact of similarities and differences in work style preferences can be computed using the Person-to-Person Match (PPM). The results can provide a measure of the quality of relationships within the group. Adding another dimension, the PPM can provide an additional measurement of the distribution of energy. Caution must be used however, because whether work style preference similarities and differences are problematic is dependent on the nature of these relationships.
The key to successful change is harnessing an organization's energy and focusing it through a shared vision. To accomplish this, the JPEA™ is used to identify the level and sources of available energy. Steps can be taken to more fully leverage the sources of Energy Gain and eliminate or minimize the adverse effects of the sources of Energy Drain. These will be vital steps in the process of developing the organization's readiness to move forward into its chosen future.
This article has addressed using the JPEA™ to assess the distribution of energy. Many of us feel powerless to influence our future and often feel victimized by circumstances. I believe that effective change processes offer attractive, exciting alternatives to this attitude. Instead of leaving the future to others, we must accept the responsibility for our own well being, and focus our collective energy through a shared vision of the future.
Back to Top
Case Number 13: Negotiating Results and Support -- The Basis for an Energized, Accountable and Self Managed Workforce
One of the greatest needs emerging in today's down-sizing and rightsizing world is how to build a self-managed workforce that is able to identify and attain the support necessary to manage the challenges. This need becomes more and more acute as traditional middle management is being reduced, and in some cases, eliminated altogether. One division within a major U.S. corporation has reorganized in such a fashion that the average manager now has 40 direct reporting relationships. The common concern of their employees centers around the question: "What does management expect and how will I be evaluated, especially when I seldom see my manager?".
Results Systems Management (RSM) is a process that utilizes the Job-Person-Match (JPM) in clarifying performance expectations, results to be generated, related activities and timelines, and needed support. RSM collates these factors into an individualized review and evaluation procedure, which will encourage self-management, employee development, appropriate communication and non-victimized accountability. RSM is based on the "Platinum Rule of Management" (managing others as the managed likes to be managed).
The process of RSM looks at each manager-direct report relationship as a unique partnership in which both results and support need to be clarified, negotiated and agreed upon if it is to be productive, profitable and satisfying for both members. It is within this context that the following steps are undertaken:
1. Clarifying a Job Description
Before the manager and direct report can talk about expected or desired performance, there needs to be a clear and agreed upon two-part job description. Part one includes the objective aspects of role, responsibilities, and tasks. Part two addresses the subjective aspects of expected behavior. Part one involves the clarification, negotiation, and agreement of the objective issues. Either party can initiate this. If it involves a person who has been in a job for some time, then it is recommended that the jobholder create a draft description of the job, which is negotiated with the manager. Part two involves the identification, negotiation and agreement of the behavioral aspects of the job. Each participant completes the Job Perception Inventory (JPI) and then participates in a facilitated job consensus meeting where both of their perceptions of the job are compared and used as the basis for determining where the job behaviors actually exist. Following this consensus meeting, a behavioral job description is produced. This more comprehensive description of the job now becomes a meaningful guide to the jobholder in preparing a results-oriented plan of action. This step is a major component of developing a succession-planning program (this will be discussed in a future article).
2. Developing a Results-Oriented Plan (Results Statement)
Utilizing the negotiated Job Description as a guide, the jobholder creates a plan outlining the results for which she or he wishes to be held accountable, along with related strategies, activities, and timelines. It is recommended that a goal and related strategy be determined for each major aspect of the job description.
3. Conducting the Person-Person Match Meeting.
Upon completing the Results Statement, the jobholder and manager participate in a facilitated Person-Person Match meeting where both similarities and differences in work-style preferences are clarified and discussed. This encounter will assist in identifying the areas of challenge and support within the relationship that need to be addressed in order to affect the Results Plan. This information, along with the information stemming from the Job-Person Match, (where the job holder's personal preferences are compared to the consensus job expectations and requirements) serve as the basis for identifying what kind of support the jobholder needs in order to carry out his or her plan. With this knowledge, the jobholder is now able to describe, in his or her Results Statement, the support desired specifically from the manager, including the form and amount of feedback.
4. Negotiating a Results Statement Agreement
At this point, the jobholder and manager negotiate the results, amount of support, and desired feedback to be provided until both can agree and sign the document, which now becomes their Results Statement Agreement (RSA). A vital part of this agreement states that if either party desires to change the goals and/or expectations of the job, then the RSA must be re-negotiated and re-signed. Such a stipulation not only encourages communication about any change that emerges, but it ensures that the jobholder will be evaluated for the results to which both parties agree. It also allows for adjustments to be made in the support needed and provided.
5. Carrying Out the Plan
The next step is the time of execution where the jobholder carries out the agreed upon activities, while the manager provides the agreed upon support and feedback. The key challenge is to keep the agreements that were made. To the extent that both parties keep their agreements; the surprises will be reduced, and the desired results will be more likely to occur. The manager will have less of a need to control, while the jobholder will experience an increased sense of responsibility, trust and freedom.
6. Reviewing and Evaluating the Results and the Support.
The final step deals with the performance and support review, developmental planning, job description review, and the negotiation of a new Results Statement Agreement. During this process, (which will be discussed in a future article) it will be important that as a part of the job description review, that both partners (manager and the jobholder) re-profile the job utilizing the JPI. This process results in a new job consensus, and will ensure that the job description remains dynamic and current. Only by engaging in these type of activities will a job description remain a meaningful guide, hence securing a sufficient balance between challenge and support for the self-managed jobholder.
Whether one likes it or not, the day of the "job that never changes" and the "manager that is always there" is almost completely gone. The bad news is that the challenges are increasing while the support is decreasing. The good news is that now we have an opportunity to look at old situations and relationships in new ways, whereby people can become more responsible, more productive and more satisfied. For this to happen, we need to turn the organization on its side, and look at the traditional hierarchical relationships as new partnering opportunities. Results Systems Management is one process whereby such a desired goal can be explored and achieved.
