KPI's for Individuals (Employees)

A

AG52014

I am looking to implement something like this for our site , and I have a general idea on how I'd like it to work.
But I wondered if anyone else has experience of this, does it work well, motivate and encourage employees to get the 100%?
Sometimes I think this may have a negative impact on them, so I really am looking for some feedback on this.

How do you implement it at your site?

Does anyone have templates available on each employees performance?

We have around 15 in our department . Thank you
 

Big Jim

Admin
This may not help much but as long as you asked.

When I was in business school in the early to mid 80s, we called them MBOs (Management By Objective). I personally didn't much care for them, although I didn't know why at the time.

The big push at that time was away from micro management schemes and toward participative management following the Japanese model. To popular books at the time were "Theory Z" and "In Search of Excellence", both of which pushed participative management.

I came to realize that the use of individual MBOs tended to be in conflict with participative management. The use of more generalized objectives, those for departments rather than for individuals, tended to promote group effort and participative management.

Anyway, that's my feeling. Others may have differing opinions, and I'm sure they will be posted.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Welcome to the Cove!

David Sirota asked, (paraphrased) "Why are we asking how we can motivate people? We should be asking how we can keep from de-motivating them!"

While it's probably okay to have KPIs, I would not expect them to motivate anyone. We should instead be removing barriers to performance and avoid comparing people against each other when all things are not equal (and they almost always are not). KPIs can do damage if they deliver the sense of whip cracking without doing our best to help others do their best.

I hope this helps!
 
G

guruprasadb

KPI's for Individuals (Employees) can demorale than keeping up the morale of the individuals

better is to have
company / organisation goals deployed to individual departments then personnel working sheet / activity sheets based on their role

every year based on company performance it will be changing
 

Chennaiite

Never-say-die
Trusted Information Resource
David Sirota asked, (paraphrased) "Why are we asking how we can motivate people? We should be asking how we can keep from de-motivating them!"

Doesn't absence of palpable Recognition (of any form) demotivate? Surely, there must be a way to measure this with the dose of objectivity and impartiality?
 
Last edited:
A

AG52014

Yes we currently have group and individual goals set and do am appraisal each year where we will discuss these and how they performed.

The idea at first about this was brought by the fact that many of the team were doing extremely well. Who are let down at the fact there are other people On the team who don't quite do as much. Each month we go through the same scenario where there are things missed and because it would be too time consuming to go through the roster and work out who should have done it that day, gaps are left all the time. This does not help when an audit comes along.

Although these are
Mentioned to the individuals it
Does not seem to the ones who do well that there is anything being noticed. As it still seems to happen with missing information. And it's not like the job isn't getting done, it's just the paperwork which isn't being filled to say it has.

By doing something like this i thought this could also be used in a way where the performance is displayed, and it would encourage the others to do those things that were being missed. The people who do well are obviously noticed and the people who don't can try to make there scores better.
There is no reason that each of them can't get 100% as they are all capable and all have ample time in there day. This way there would be less mistakes each week. The information could be used as part of their appraisal too.

It was never meant to be demoralising or cracking the whip sort of exercise but I can see how it could be interpreted like that.

That is why I asked for some feedback, because I would hate for the team to feel like that.
 

RoxaneB

Change Agent and Data Storyteller
Super Moderator
My concern with individual KPIs is that Management Systems talk about processes - when there is a discrepancy, it is something in the process, not the person. Individual metrics have the potential to send a message contrary to that philosophy.

To further this point, consider the difference between 'accountable' and 'responsible'. I may be required to complete an activity but have no ability to ensure that it is done on time and in spec. So, if there is a bottleneck that adversely impacts my ability to complete my task and I have no authority to resolve it, I will be unable to complete my responsibility and there goes my KPI. It can be a frustrating and demoralizing scenario, and set the entire team up for failure.

Are you trying to improve the performance of individuals or the performance of the team?

If you're looking to focus on the individuals, it's important for everyone to clearly know what the expectations are regarding competency. Where gaps exists, the right enablers (e.g., training, mentoring, coaching, job shadowing, etc.) should be provided if you wish to provide them with the opportunity to improve.

Keep in mind, however, that not everyone wants to change or improve. Some people are perfectly content to come to work, meet expectations and go home. Their priorities in life are elsewhere. This is neither right nor wrong...it simply is.

If you're looking to focus on the team as a whole, I recommend you read Patrick Lencioni's "The Five Dysfunctions of a Team". There is a self-assessment in the back. Recently, our team had a team building and planning day. We've experienced a lot of change with our team dynamic over the past year and we're also experiencing fatigue and burnout. Prior to this team day, we had all members of the team anonymously complete the self-assessment. We showed the results at the team meeting and had some interesting discussions regarding our team and our roles within the team. Feedback afterwards was that this was a value-added discussion and helped individuals to regain trust and focus.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
There is no reason that each of them can't get 100% as they are all capable and all have ample time in there day. This way there would be less mistakes each week. The information could be used as part of their appraisal too.
I was following along until we got to this part. Are you sure everyone can perform to the same standards? Are we machines?
It was never meant to be demoralising or cracking the whip sort of exercise but I can see how it could be interpreted like that.
I am not at your workplace so I cannot see the expectations or the conditions in which people are expected to achieve them, but I can offer we are not all alike. We are motivated by different things and we perform in some ways better than others.

Are you sure your people are all doing work they have an aptitude for? How are you sure?

Are you sure each person has the free ability to perform, with no constraints presented by a person, thing or situation he or she is not in control of? How are you sure?

Do any of your people read or comprehend the written word with more difficulty than others? This doesn't indicate their intelligence or motivation; Richard Branson (owner of Virgin Airlines) never graduated high school and the CEO of Cicso Systems is (or was, I don't know if he is still there) so dyslexic he does not like to use email - he likes to use voice mail.

Sirota et.al correctly pointed out that people are motivated at different levels based on personality, with a (usually) very small proportion being "poison people" who have an effect of dragging down performance of others.

All of these factors are the context of my caution that KPIs can do damage unless we fully understand our people and have done the very utmost to ensure each can perform at his or her best. Even after doing that the results will almost certainly vary. We may find some who can be given more, or more challenging work and be compensated for that. Others are perfectly happy, and perfectly dependable (also an arguably valuable thing) doing routine, lower level work. Some others yet are brilliant, but may seem a little bit unhinged. Such a person's creativity could be captured and leveraged but we ought not to expect him or her to perform routine tasks consistently.

How well do you know your people?

I hope this helps!
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
Doesn't absence of palpable Recognition (of any form) demotivate? Surely, there must be a way to measure this with the dose of objectivity and impartiality?
Not always. It depends on whether we value or need money, or whether we create or perform to (or above) standards because we want to or because we need job security. Books like 1,001 Ways to Reward Employees may help to understand how differently we can value different rewards. It's all about what we find personally important.
 

RoxaneB

Change Agent and Data Storyteller
Super Moderator
Not always. It depends on whether we value or need money, or whether we create or perform to (or above) standards because we want to or because we need job security. Books like 1,001 Ways to Reward Employees may help to understand how differently we can value different rewards. It's all about what we find personally important.

... Or ... One could read Jennifer's signature line and recognize the speaker as one who promoted the hierarchy of needs. :cool:
 
Top Bottom