We’ve noticed a recurring theme when talking with HR decision-makers: how to establish a common understanding and way of defining what ‘Good’ looks like for key roles in an organisation.
Everyone you ask has a different opinion, and judges it differently.
The problem is, not being able to describe what good looks like in a consistent way results in:
- managers setting unclear expectations about performance targets with ambiguous or unrealistic targets, and consequently getting less out of their people than they are capable of
- variable hiring effectiveness; the wrong people hired for the job and missing better candidates
- people promoted into the wrong roles, or roles where they are lacking key competencies, most commonly managerial behaviours
- variable performance across the business, affecting customer perception of quality and not having a basis for continuous improvement.
So what are the methods relied on to making the decision about what good looks like?
There is plenty of available information to contribute to the view of 'what good looks like' and our complete article takes a look at these. It covers:
- The role of the job desciption and Person Specification;
- How values can be used to define individual 'enablers' for a role;
- How to review and use the CV and applicant references and also the qualifications and achievements of an applicant person;
- The role that policy, process and procedure have in defining the work itself;
- Using interviews and organisational competency frameworks;
- Making use of available appraisal data and 360 degree feedback review data;
- Looking at psychometric results;
- Developing case studies and success stories;
- Taking into account opinion.