public personnel management journal-public sector organizations-todays innovative leaders in...

7/31/2019 Public Personnel Management Journal-Public Sector Organizations-Todays Innovative Leaders in Performance Mana

1/26

Publ ic Sect or Organizat ionsTodays Innovative Leaders in Performance Management

Publi shed in Public Personnel ManagementJournal (International PersonnelManagement Association)Spr ing 2000 Issue

By Dick Gr ot e


2/26

PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANIZATION TODAY S INNOVATIVE LEADERS IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

Page 2 COPYRIGHT 2000 Dick Grot e

INTRODUCTION

Whos coming up with the best new ideas for managing peoples performance on the job?

Surpr isingly, some of the most innovative work in developing new approaches to performance

management is being done t hese days by organizations in t he publ ic sector. When executives lookfor breakthrough th inking and best pract ices, their best sources frequently turn out to be state

agencies and city governments, federal bureaucracies, and your local pardons and parole boards.

Like most management expert s, I used t o accept t he conventional wisdom: publ i c sector agencies

and t heir m anagers are real ly second-class ci t izens when i t comes to i nnovat ion and t ra i lb lazing.

I assumed, l ike everybody else, that new ideas always or ig inate in the pr ivate sector and then,

slowl y and wit h great resist ance, f i l t er down t o st ate agencies and local government s.

I was wrong. Managers in the publ ic sector are not innovations stepchi ldren. Genuinely exci t ing

perf ormance management in i t iat i ves bold, ingenious and utt er ly pract ical are emerging from

t his oft en-over looked sector.

I d iscovered the exci t ing work t hat government agencies are doing in perf ormance management a

couple years ago when I wrote the books, Discipline Without Punishment an d The Complete

Guide t o Perf orm ance Appraisal. My research demonstrated that many of the innovations I was

t rumpet ing were in f act deve loped in t he pub l ic sector .

My awareness that publ ic sector is leading the pack in performance management innovation was

confi rmed about a year ago, when I s igned on as subject-matter expert for the nationalbenchmarking study on best pract ices in performance appraisal sponsored by the American

Productiv i ty and Qual i ty Center, DDI, and Linkage, Inc. My f i rst task was to identi fy the

companies that are doing real ly innovative stuff in performance management. But many of these

companies t urned out not t o be companies. Many of them w ere government agencies, and tw o

of t hem t he Air Force Research Laboratory and t he Minnesota Departm ent of Transport at ion

made t he f inal cut as best pract i ce models.

JUST WHAT IS PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT ?

Performance management is the handy umbrel la term for a l l of the organizational act iv i t ies

involved in managing people on the j ob. Perf orm ance appr aisal, of course, is the one we th ink of

f i rs t , and peop le o f t en use t he te rm s per formance management and per formance appraisa l

interchangeably.


3/26



But other act iv i t ies also f ind room under t he perform ance management um brel la discip l ine

systems, for example. In addition to creating some novel approaches to assessing and evaluating

j ust how w el l Cha r l ie and Jane ar e doi ng t hei r j ob s per f or m an ce ap prai sal , ob vi ou sly

government agencies at a l l levels are reacting in enti re ly new ways when Char l ie and Jane drop

the bal l and create problems on the job. Discip l ine procedures are another type of performance

management syst em.

And what happens when i t s management t hat drops the bal l ? Char l ie s upset because he f eels he

shouldnt have been assigned to work overtime; Janes indignant over what she sees as an

undeserved wr i t t en warning. Gr ievance procedures t oo are perform ance management devices.

In each of these areas, government agencies at a l l levels are developing and instal l ing

performance management procedures and systems that can appear revolut ionary to anyone

who s locked int o old ways of managing people.

SO WHAT S NEW IN PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL?

Historically, performance appraisal has been seen as merely an eventthe painful annual

exercise where t he manager rat es t he perform ance of her subordinates over t he past 12 months.

Operating independently a l l by i tsel f , the performance appraisal system was rarely l inked

direct ly to the stated mission of the organization or to any other programs and processes

designed to maximize human effor ts and intel lectual capi ta l .

Independence has now been replaced by int egrat ion. At t he organizations our APQC/ DDI/ Linkageproject team examined, publ ic and pr ivate al ike, the performance appraisal system is no longer

an organizational loose cannon. I tems on the performance appraisal are direct ly t ied to the

agencys st rategic p l an. The syst em is designed to forge a visib le l ink bet ween organizat ional and

individual goals and t o re inforce predet ermined core compet encies.

Moreover, organizational expect at ions of t he perf ormance appraisal syst em have been upgraded.

Where in the past the system may have been used merely to te l l o ld Joe how he was doing and

j ust i f y hi s an nu al st ep inc rea se, or ganiza t ion s no w rea l ize t hat t hei r per f or m an ce ap prai sal

syst em has enormous power t o genuinely t ransform t he agencys cul t ure.

One of the major f indings of the national benchmarking study was that best-pract ice

organizations are using their performance appraisal process as the pr imary dr iver in forcing

cul ture change. Whats the change? It s the shi f t from being a best-effor t cul ture into a tru ly

resul ts-dr iven cl imate.


4/26



This dr ive to focus organizat ion mem bers on resul t s and not t enure has placed a new r equirement

on performance appraisal s shoulders: the expectat ion that performance appraisal must help

muscle-bui ld t he organization.

Government agencies are coming t o see t hat t radi t ional approaches to people development like

promotion from with in based almost exclusively on job tenureare no longer good enough. An

agency that uses t ime in grade as i ts fundamental cr i ter ion for gett ing ahead is encouraging

organizational hardening of t he art er ies.

CULTURE CHANGE IN PRACTICE

One of the f i rst organizations to emerge as a genuine model of best pract ices in the national

benchmarking study was the Air Force Research Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, an organization of

3000 people. Their appraisal system completely designed by their scientists and not by the

personnel department, makes the novel assumption that everyone is performing at a competent

level .

The appraisal system, they argue, needs to focus not on the qual i ty of an individual s

performance but on the degree o f the job s cont r ibu t ion . AFRL deliberately builds jobs big and

loads each person wi t h as much responsibi l i t y as possible. When a person can t handle a j ob, t hey

ratchet the responsibi l i t ies down to where he can handle the demands. People migrate to the

j ob s t hey can ha nd le. Pay is det erm ine d less by t he ind ividua l s per f or m an ce an d m or e by t he

contr ibut ion his or her j ob makes to t he overal l mission.

Focusing on resul ts clear ly indicates whether an employee is doing the job for which he is paid.

That s why AFRL's perf ormance m anagement syst em evaluat es employees' cont r ibut ions / output s

/ r esu l t s. As a resu l t , AFRL pay rai ses ar e based on co nt r ibut ion s t o t he or gani za t ion s m issio n.

The syst em does not appraise perfor mance or behavior, only cont r ibut ion.

Al l employees have var iable pay to motivate their performance toward achieving resul ts that wi l l

impact the organization. The new employee has the incentive to contr ibute at or above the

expected level because next year s pay may be lowered or the employee removed i f the

contr i buti on does not m eet or exceed expectat ions.


5/26



More specifically, AFRL's Contribution-based Compensation System (CCS) delineates six key

factors:

Technical Problem Solving Communicat ions/ Report ing Corporate Resources Management Technology Transi t ion / Transfer (Taking technology out of t he laboratory

envi ronment and put i t to r ea l -wor ld use)

R& D Business Develop m ent Cooperat ion and Supervi sion

Employees certa in ly recognize the resul ts-dr iven nature of the system. AFRLs leaders admit i t :

Fear of being held accountable for results was apparent in some AFRL employees upon the

deployment of the Contr ibution-based Compensation System. Some employees who didn t fare

wel l under the new system have left the organization; others have noticeably worked to improve

their level of contr ibut ion. The major i ty of employees, however, embraced the system because

t hey recognized t he equi t able natur e of CCS.

REINFORCING CORE COMPETENCIES

Over the past several years, one of the signi f icant developments in the technology of

perf ormance management has been t he identi f icat i on of speci f ic core compet encies by

organizations. Competencies define for a l l members of the organization the behaviors, ski l ls,

attr ibutes, performance factors and prof ic iencies that every organization member is expected to

possess and display. They are l imited in number and critical to organizational success.

The performance appraisal system plays several ro les here. First, i t is the mechanism that helps

the organization highl ight and communicate the smal l number of cr i t ical ly important behaviors

and skil ls against which every single employee wil l be assessed. In addition, creating a new

performance appraisal system may help force the organization to define just what attr ibutes or

factors are actual ly at the organizations core. Final ly, the appraisal system can guarantee that

t hese compet encies are fu l ly understood and inst i t ut i onal ized.


6/26



The senior management of the Minnesota Department of Transportat ion defined i ts mission,

vision and values several years ago in response to a 1996 employee survey. Seven core

compet encies and a dozen individual character i st ics expected of every Mn/ DOT employee were

also identi f ied as part of t hat pr ocess.

Top management real ized that deter mining t he core competencies as di f f icul t as doing that

had been was in fact t he easy j ob. The hard job w ould be communicat ing them t o every

Mn/ DOT employee. Even harder would be making sure t hat t hey showed up, day in, day out, in

everybodys job perf ormance. That s where perf ormance appraisal came in.

In early 1998 Mn/ DOT s senior m anagement comm issioned a perfor mance appraisal

implementation team. They put together a group representing a diagonal sl ice of the

organization: managers and professional empl oyees, supervisors, and t echnicians fr om di f f erent

levels and f unctions and geographical locations throughout t he agency. This tw enty-m ember t ask

force was made responsible for creating a performance appraisal system that d irect ly re lated

Mn/ DOT s mission, vision and values t o each employee s job. In addi t i on, t op management

demanded that the system reinforce the importance of a l l employees demonstrat ing the core

compet encies and individual character ist ics t hey had identi f ied.

INTEGRATING MISSION, VISION AND VALUES INTOPERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

The Mn/ DOT perfor mance appraisal implem entat ion team creat ed one of t he most sophist i cated

performance management systems of any organization in the country. To begin, they took each

of the core competencies Leadership, Learning and Strategic Systems Thinking, Quality

Management, Organizational Knowledge, Technical Knowledge and People Management and

developed a unique t wist on conventional appraisal t echniques. Inst ead of def in ingwhat each of

those terms meant, they instead described the behavior one would l ikely see exhibi ted by a true

master per former .

For example, f or their core compet ency of Organizat ional Knowledge, inst ead of def in ing what

was meant by the phrase, they descr ibed how you could spot somebody who knows the

organization perfect ly:


7/26



ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE:Underst ands Mn/ DOT s cult ure. Accurat ely explai ns Mn/ DOT s organizati onal

st ruct ure, m ajor products/ services, and how various part s of t he organizat ion

contr ibute to each other. Gets work done through formal channels and informal

networks. Understands and can explain the origin and reasoning behind key policies,

practices and procedures. Understands, accepts and communicates polit ical realit ies

and impl icat ions.

Descr ib ing the behavior of a mast er perform er in Organizat ion Knowledge may be a bi t of a

chal lenge. But w hat about a competency as enigmatic and crypt ic as Learning and St rategic

Syst ems Thinking? What cl ues can you use t o spot a tr ue virt uoso here?

Look a t what t hey came up wi th :

LEARNING AND STRATEGIC SYSTEMS THINKING:

Accept s responsibi l i t y f or cont i nued improvement/ learning. Appreciat es and can

explain the mission of each individual work unit and the importance of the t ie

between them to make the ent ire operat ion whole. Acquires new ski l ls and

competencies and can explai n how t hey benef it Mn/ DOT. Regularl y t akes all

t ransportat ion forms (i .e. , b icycle, l ight ra i l , h ighways, etc.) into account in planning

and problem solving. Seeks information and ideas from multiple sources. Freely and

int ent ional ly shares ideas wi t h ot hers.

By descr ib ing the performance that one might observe in someone who has mastered th is area

instead of just provid ing a dict ionary-style defin i t ion, the implementation team made the l ives of

Mn/ DOT appraisers much easier. Now, when an em ployee asks her boss what i t is that t he agency

expects of her in the var ious competency areas, a l l the boss has to do is hand her a copy of the

appraisal form and say, Here. Read th is. And then j ust do what i t says.

ABETTER RATING SCHEME

As clever as their descr ipt ions of mast ery perf ormance are, t he Mn/ DOT team ingeniously solved

sti l l another perpetual performance appraisal d i lemma when they constructed the rat ing scale

for appraisers to use in evaluating peoples performance in each competency area. Instead of

forcing raters to use absolute judgments for their assessment of the individual s performance,

inst ead they asked how oft en Sal ly perf ormed as a mast er w ould in each area.


8/26



In other words, rather than ask appraisers to judge the qual i ty of a subordinates performance

was Susie Marginal or Competent or Distinguished; d id Joe Fail to Meet Standards, Meet

Standardsor Exceed St andard s t he new Mn/ DOT process inst ead asks the rat er t o indicat e how

fr equently Susie or Joe perf orms at a mast ery level .

The scale values for t h is part of t he Mn/ DOT process are Occasionally, Sometimes, Frequently,

an d Regularly. This approach greatly increases the effect iveness of coaching and lowers the

recipients defensiveness when bad news has to be del ivered. The manager no longer has to

confront Mary wi t h h is j udgment t hat in t he area o f qua l i ty she is Unacceptab le o r Be low

St andard or a 2. The manager can now say, Mary, in t he compet ency area of Qual i t y,

occasionally I see you act ing the way the form says a master performer would act. What do you

need to do so that 12 months from now I can say that I see that kind of performance frequently

or regularl y?

For t hose areas t hat don t lend t hemselves t o a behavioral f requency rat ing syst em, Mn/ DOT

incorpora ted t wo o t her invent ive t echniques. F i rst , t hey recognized tha t the labe l f o r t he midd le

posi t ion on the rat ing scale the place where most peoples performance usual ly fa l ls is

t ypical ly fe l t t o connot e average or mediocre. Nobody wants to be seen as a st udent; nobody

l ikes that middl e rat ing. Their solut ion was to abol ish language t hat suggest ed t hat per form ing in

a fu l ly acceptab le manner was tan tamount to m ediocr i t y . Instead t he te rm they came up wi t h fo r

t he middle rat ing was, Ful ly Successful : Total ly comp etent perfor mance; Good sol id

contr ibut or. Who can complain about being cal led fu l ly successful , even i f t wo higher cat egor ies

of Clear ly Super ior and Truly Dist inguished are avai lable f or t hose who have genuinelyearned t hem?

Final ly, on the appraisal form i t sel f Mn/ DOT speci f ical l y indicated t he rat ings dist r ibut ion l ikely

t o show up i n a large organization. Thus t he form t el ls appraisers that t ypical ly less t han 5% of

people fa l l int o the cat egor ies of Truly Dist inguished or Unsuccessful ; about 15% might be

Somewhat Successful wi t h 30% or so demonst rat i ng Clear ly Super ior perform ance. Final ly,

t he form t el ls rat ers and ratees al ike to expect about 50% or more t o qual i fy for t he middle

Ful ly Successful rat i ng.

CLARIFYING COMPETENCIES

The Minnesota Departm ent of Transport at ion exper i ence demonst rates one of t he key f i ndings of

the best-pract ice performance management study: organizations are incorporating core

compet encies int o t heir appraisal procedures.


9/26



Some, l i ke Mn/ DOT, do i t ext remely w e l l . Others, pub l ic and pr iva te both , st r ugg le wi th the

process. But one, the City of Irving (TX) developed a performance appraisal system that is a

model for i ts form design, i ts incorporation of core competencies, and the ingenious process i ts

designers came up w it h for making i t easy for managers to use the syst em w el l .

Everyone accepts the fact that the performance appraisal form is not the most important part of

the process. But the form is a l ightning rod that attracts everybodys attention. And one of the

most d i f f icul t quest ions t hat need t o be answered is, how m any forms do we need?

Wil l one size f i t a l l? Or do we need di f ferent forms for d i f ferent jobs? But i f we have several

fo rms, won t tha t create a caste system, i f the f o rm for the honchos is d i f fe rent f rom the one fo r

t he under l ings?

The City of Irvings design team found an elegant solut ion to th is sensi t ive problem. The same

form is used for everybody what ever our job, w e re al l employees of t he Cit y of Irving. But

in the part of the form that concentrates on competencies, the designers recognized that there

are di f ferent ski l l groups, and they establ ished var ious categor ies to take the di f ferences in job

content in t o account .

They started by determining that every job in the ci ty fe l l neatly into one of six groups according

t o the ski l l dem ands of t he posi t ion: Cler ical , Maintenance/ Trades, Technical , Professional ,

Supervisory, and Execut ive Management . They then began t he ident i f i cat ion of compet encies.

They started with the real izat ion that some of the th ings they expect of employees are simplybone-deep attr ibutes or expectat ions required of anybody who col lects a paycheck from the City

of Irving. They cal led these, Core Values, and sett led on f ive of t hem: Cust omer Service, Et hics

and Integrity, Job Knowledge and Skil ls, Professionalism, and Self Management. Besides these,

t here are also Perf orm ance Essent ials skil l s or prof icienc ies needed by anyone who wor ks for

a l iv ing. Again, the l ist was narrowed to the six most important for anyone on the payrol l of the

ci ty: Communication, Sel f Development, In i t iat ive, Interpersonal Ski l ls, Qual i ty of Work, and

Teamwork. L ike the Core Values, these are essentia l in everybodys job and show up on every

employee s appraisal form .

But f inal ly, there are those competencies that wi l l vary from one ski l l group to another. For a

cler ical employee, two cr i t ical competencies are Work Habits and Quanti ty of Work. This br ings

the total number of competencies assessed for a person in the Cler ical ski l l group to 13 f ive

core values, six performance essentia l , and the two speci f ic, job-related ski l l group

competencies.


10/26



For a professional employee the total number of competencies assessed grows to 20 the same

fi ve core values and six perf ormance essenti a ls, but t he l ist of ski l l group compet encies changes.

Quant i t y o f Work and Work Hab i ts d isappear f rom t he l i st ( they r e taken fo r g ranted in

professionals) but are replaced wit h nine others, l ike Account abi l i t y and Achievement Orient at ion

and Innovation.

Maint enance/ Trades employees have 14 comp et encies t hey re assessed against; people w hose

j ob s f al l int o t he Te chn ical ski l l gr ou p have 17 . Th e l ar gest num ber com es as yo u m igh t ex pec t

at t he hi ghest l ev el . Exe cut ive Man age m en t is assessed agai nst 22 com pet enc ies, w hi l e

members of the Supervisory skil l group as you might not expect have the highest number of

compet encies at 23.

You can hear th e wai ls from managers alr eady How can you possibl y expect me t o assess each

one of my people against 13 or 17 or 23 di f f erent compet encies? But t he syst em designers have

made t heir j obs easy for t hem.

Painstakingly, system developers Kathy Cleveland and Donna Starl ing took every one of the

competency i tems and ident i f ied a l l o f t he components tha t m ake up In i t ia t ive , fo r example , o r

Safety or Fiscal Responsibi l i ty. Then, for each of their f ive levels of performance, they wrote

behavioral ly anchored perf ormance descr ipt ions t hat descr ibe exact ly how a ci t y employee mi ght

behave at each level of perform ance.

For t he h igh ly complex competency o f Adaptab i l i t y / Flex ib i l i ty , fo r example , the components and

t he behavioral ly anchored rat i ng st atem ents are as fo l l ows:


11/26



For each compet ency, a l l t he appraiser needs t o do now is read the st atem ents and pick the ones

t hat best descr ibe exact ly how Sal ly behaves.

MAKING THE APPRAISAL PROCESS POSITIVE

Research on perform ance appraisal , going back t o some of t he f i rst studies conducted at General

Electr ic and publ ished in 1954, confi rm that cr i t ic ism has l i t t le effect on producing last ing

behavioral change. Reinforcement of strengths, ta lents, and posi t ive behaviors however, can

generat e an increase in t heir f requency. How do w e put a posi t ive spin on perf ormance appraisal ,

t he most scorned and der ided of a l l m anagement processes?

The Nat ional Secur i t y Agency found a simpl e and unpret enti ous way t o create a posi t ive t one for

i ts new appraisal process that i t incorporated into i ts formal appraisal procedures. At NSA, al l

raters are to ld to ask their ratees, a few weeks before the wr i t ing of the annual evaluation, to

send in a l ist of a l l of t he contr i but ions and accompl i shment s t he subordinate has made over t he

past 12-month appraisal per iod.


12/26



Only include the posi t ives, supervisors are instructed to te l l their subordinates. And keep i t

inform al, t oo j ust send me an emai l or wr i t e i t on the back of an envelope and drop i t on my

desk?

So whats the big deal? First, asking the subordinate to compile a l ist of successes and send it to

the boss before the formal appraisal is wr i t ten certa in ly re inforces the organizations message

that i t wants the appraisal process to be an aff i rmative, construct ive and posi t ive process. This

notion is even more strongly re inforced when the appraiser goes on to explain that he doesn t

want a ba lanced p ic ture . I f you ve had any fa i lu res over t he year , he s to ld to t e l l h is

employees, o r a pro ject tha t d idn t go r igh t , o r anyth ing e lse tha t doesn t re f lect you at your

best , leave i t o f f the l i s t . I on ly want a l i st o f t h ings tha t you re genu ine ly proud o f .

More important, and more subtle, is the other reason for asking for the accompl ishments l ist.

Probably nothing is more embarrassing to an appraiser than having an employee finish reading

her annual review and moan, You didn t even mention t he Thompson cont ract I landed last

February! I t s easy t o over look the t r iumphs and achievement s of ot hers; w e rarely d isregard

our ow n. By asking appraisers to r equest an accompl ishment s l ist fr om subordinates, i t is helping

to assure that the appraiser wi l l not be embarrassed by inadvertently ignor ing a success that

should be recorded on t he annual review .

The City of Irving, a lready a model of innovation for i ts development of a unique approach to the

assessment of competencies, took NSAs ideas of the accomplishments l ist one valuable step

further. As annual appraisal t ime approaches, each ci ty employee is asked to f i l l out a short

quest ionnaire t hat ki cks off t he process. The form consist s only of four open-ended quest ions:

1. In appraising your performance, are there any other persons you work wi th or aroundwith whom your supervisor should speak to get a more complete picture of how you do

your w ork / get resu l ts?

2. Of what accompl ishments and ski l ls acquired dur ing the last appraisal per iod are youpart icular ly proud?

3.

What can be done to make you more effect ive in your j ob?

4. What can be done to help you provide bet t er service t o your cust omers?


13/26



INCORPORATING TECHNOLOGY INTO PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Technology can make the performance management process simpler. I t is far easier for an

appraiser to access an electronic form on her companys Intranet than to labor wi th penci l and

paper. Sophist icated software can al low senior managers to see both the distr ibut ion ofperformance rat ings across the enti re organization and view pay inequi t ies instantaneously.

Course enrol lment t o meet development needs can be done wit hout f orms and phone cal ls.

Most sophist icated organizations today, and al l of the best-pract ice models in the national

benchmarking st udy, are seeking ways of using t echnology t o reduce t he administrat ive burden of

performance management, a burden that grows as the performance management system is

increasingly l inked with compensation, development, and perhaps even an agencys 360-degree

feedback system. Many are also f inding innovative ways to use technology for just- in- t ime (JIT)

feedback and tra in ing.

No organization today is using technology better than the Air Force Research Laboratory again,

an example of a publ i c sector organization leading the pack.

AFRL's advantage comes from their h ighly sophist icated point-and-cl ick software. In addi t ion to

al lowing supervisors to more eff ic iently create job descr ipt ions and complete employee

assessments, the software helps the organization automate what would otherwise be

administrat ively d i f f icul t pay changes whi le simult aneously ensur ing pay equi ty.

Their computer-based, paper less process permits performance management systemadministrators to ensure equity throughout AFRL by graphing employee positions based on the

relat ionship between pay and performance. Both supervisors and system administrators are

provided with instant information. Furthermore, they can manipulate pay var iables and instantly

see the effect on the overal l d istr ibut ion, thus al lowing them to make decisions that are more

in formed.

Their software l inks ten geographical ly d isbursed si tes, walks managers through the complete

appraisal process and allows all assessment and pay data to be hierarchically rol led up

throughout the organization.


14/26



FROM PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TO PERFORMANCEIMPROVEMENT

Performance appraisal is only one example of the lead publ ic sector organizations are taking in

performance management innovation. The purpose of performance appraisal is to identi fy the

qual i t y of an individual s job perform ance. What happens when t hat qual i t y is unaccept able?

One of t he most innovative per form ance management procedures publ ic sector organizat ions are

instal l ing is a non-puni t ive, DISCIPLINE W ITHOUT PUNISHMENT approach when informal conversations

fai l to solve problems of absenteeism, poor performance and shabby att i tudes. Organizations as

varied as the Charlotte (NC) Housing Authority, Floridas Pinellas County and North Carolinas

Mecklenburg County, the Congressional Budget Off ice, the Universi ty of I l l inois, the City of San

Angelo (TX), the Houston Department of Aviat ion and the enti re State of Georgia have rejected

traditional adversarial discipl inary responses. In these organizations, reprimands, warnings,

demotions, and unpaid discip l inary suspensions are a th ing of the past. Instead, they have

adopted an approach that requires errant employees to take personal responsibi l i ty for their

behavior and commit to fu l ly sat isfactory performance as a condi t ion of continued employment.

THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH T O DISCIPLINE

Since the 1930s, publ ic and pr ivate organizations al ike have sett led on a common procedure to

handle organizational lapses from grace: progressive discip l ine. This tradi t ional progressive-

discipline system was developed seventy years ago when unions demanded that companies

el iminate summary terminations and develop a progressive system of penal t ies that would

provide a worker w i t h a brand new benefi t prot ect i on against l osing his j ob wit hout f i rst being

ful ly aware that h is j ob was at r i sk.

This tradi t ional , progressive-discip l ine model instructs the supervisor to begin the problem-

solving process by conduct ing i l l def ined coaching and counselin g sessions. When coaching and

counsel ing fa i l , the supervisor then is to ld to move into formal d iscip l inary act ion, a lmost a lways

descr ibed as a four-step process. An Oral Warning is fo l lowed by a Wri t ten Warning. I f the

problem continues, the supervisor then suspends the employee for a per iod of several days

wi thout pay, o r wr i tes a f ina l warn ing not ice , o r p laces the employee on probat ion . I f the

individual st i l l does not correct h is performance, termination fo l lows.


15/26



WHAT S WRONG WITH THIS TRADITIONAL APPROACH?

Tradi t ional progressive-discip l ine i s Ameri ca's cr iminal j ust ice syst em brought int o t he wor kplace.

The basic premise of th is tradi t ional d iscip l ine system is that cr ime must be fo l lowed by

pun ishment . Wi t h i ts const ant quest t o make the pun ishment f i t the cr ime, i t a t t empts toprov ide an awkward mix o f re t r ibu t ion and rehab i l i ta t ion .

A growing number of publ ic-sector organizations have found a var iety of problems with the

tradi t ional approach to discip l ine that have caused them to examine and revise their pract ices

and approach. What are t hese problem s?

IT S A 1930S, ADVERSARIAL METHOD

The tradi t ional progressive-discip l ine approach was actual ly concocted by unions back in the

1930s and foisted on unwil l ing companies and agencies who resisted having a discipl ine system at

al l . As a resul t , our tradi t ional system ref lects the adversar ia l , labor vs. management, us vs.

them assumptions that prevai led in those hosti le t imes. In fact, the discip l ine system that most

organizations use today is probably the only remaining vestige of the acrimonious 1930s approach

to people-management that st i l l remains in our manager ia l toolki t .

IT MAKES THE SUPERVISOR THE BAD GUY

Most supervisors hate having to t ake discip l inary act ion. Wit h i t s cr imi nal j ust ice mechanism, t he

syst em f orces t he supervisor t o become t he empl oyees adversary. The supervisor f eels l ike he s

t he bad guy, the one who s wear ing the black hat.

IT S NOT A CORRECTIVE PROCESS

Organizations often discover that their supervisors don t see their d iscip l ine procedure as a

correct ive devise. To them, i t s the procedure they must fo l low to generate enough paperwork to

j ust i f y d isch ar ge on ce t he y ve dec ided t ha t an em ploy ee s t erm ina t ion is in or der . Th ey vi ew t he

steps of the discip l ine system merely as the hoops put up by the personnel department for them

to jump through in order to e f fect a prob lem employee s f i r ing . As a resu l t , they don t even

begint he discip l ine process unti l t hey have given up hope of ever correct ing the problem .


16/26



THE TRADITIONAL DISCIPLINE SYSTEM OFTEN CLASHES WITH THE ORGANIZATION S VALUES

A large number of publ ic sector organizations today have careful ly-drafted, formal statements of

their v ision and values. They have considered careful ly what kind of organization they are and

what they aspire to be. But these values are often in d irect confl ict wi th organizational pract ices

when the t ime comes for d iscip l inary act ion.

THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH SIMPLY ASKS TOO LITTLE

The t radi t ional progressive-discip l ine approach is certa in ly unpleasant. I t breeds resentm ent and

hosti l i ty. But the tradi t ional system is f lawed by more than just i ts exclusive rel iance on

punishment: i t is insuff ic iently demanding.

Punishment warnings, reprimands, suspensions without pay seems l ike a tough way of

assur ing compl iance with organizational standards. I f someone fa i ls to meet expectat ions, we

punish that individual unti l he compl ies. But compl iance is a l l that the tradi t ional system canproduce, and publ ic sector organizat ions t oday need more t han mere compl iance.

We can punish people into compl iance. But we cannot punish people into commitment. And

genuine commitment to the organization is the pr imary impetus dr iv ing innovative publ ic sector

organizations to seek a m ore eff ect i ve approach.

HOW DOES THE POSITIVE DISCIPLINE APPROACH WORK?

Like tr adi t i onal d iscip l ine syst ems, t he DISCIPLINE WITHOUT PUNISHMENT approach starts wi th informal

discussions. Like conventional approaches, it then moves to a series of progressive discipl inary

st eps when t hese inf ormal conversat ions fa i l t o produce resul ts.

But the di f ferences between posi t ive discip l ine and conventional d iscip l inary pract ices are

dramat ic .


17/26



To begin, Posi t ive Contact s are included as a form al e lement of t he syst em. Making recogni t ion

a formal part of the system reminds managers that re inforcing good performance is just as

import ant as confront ing poor perf ormance. I t a lso makes employees aware t hat t he organization

expects tha t they wi l l be recogn ized when they per form wel l . Most impor tant , i t makes

recogni t ion of good performance a policy expectat ion of the organization, not merely an easi ly

ignored piece of prosaic advice dispensed in a management- t ra in ing program.

Now consider the o ther end o f the char t . Another major d i f fe rence between the convent iona l

and posi t ive models is the new approachs recogni t ion that the discip l ine process actual ly

involves only t h ree steps, not four. Termination is not the f inal step of the discip l ine system, as

the tradi t ional progressive-discip l ine model would have i t . More accurately, termination

represents t he f a i lu re of t he discip l ine syst em.

A commonly used met aphor holds t hat Discharge is the capi t a l punishment of organizat ional

l i f e. That met aphor is nonsense. The proper m etaphor f or d ischarge is t hat i t is a no-fault

d ivorce. Your e a good person, t he organization says t o t he individual when al l t he st eps of

discip l inary act ion have proved fr u i t less, and we re a good employer. But your goals and needs

and our goals and needs can t be reconci led. You need to f ind a place to work where you can be

happy; we need to f ind someone to f i l l th is job who can meet our expectat ions. We now must go

our separat e w ays.


18/26



THE INITIAL STEPS OF FORMAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION: REMINDERS I AND II

When informal coaching sessions and performance improvement discussions are unsuccessful in

solving a performance or behavior problem, the f i rst level of formal d iscip l inary act ion is a

REMINDER I. The supervisor d iscusses the problem, reminds the employee of h is responsibi l i ty to

meet the organization's standards, and gains the employees agreement to return to fu l ly

acceptable performance.

If the problem continues, the supervisor moves to a REMINDERII. Again the supervisor ta lks to the

employee and gains his or her agreement t o solve the probl em. Aft er t he meet ing, t he supervisor

form al ly documents the discussion in a wr i t t en memo t o the empl oyee.

The te rm Reminder is chosen del iberately. Unl ike a warning or repr imand, we are in fact

remind ing the employee o f two th ings. F i rs t , we re remind ing h im o f the speci f ic gap between

his exist ing performance and the performance we expect. Second, we are reminding him that i t

i s hi sresponsibi l i t y t o del iver t he goods and do the j ob t hat he is being paid t o do.

Using Reminders I and II el iminates another nagging annoyance generated by the traditional

syst em: t he issue of oral and wr i t t en. I f a supervisor gives a subordinate a Verbal

Repr im and or an Oral Warning, is t hat act ion documented? Of course. Is t he documentat ion

wr i t ten down? Of course. So doesn t tha t tu rn an Ora l Warn ing in to a Wr i t t en Warn ing ?

Don t f igh t tha t ba t t le . Ca l l i t a Reminder Ior a Reminder II to ind ica te s imply the leve l o f thest ep, and descr ibe t he documentat ion procedures separately.

THE FINAL STEP: DECISION MAKING LEAVE

When the in i t i a l st eps of f ormal d i scip l inary act ion are unsuccessful in convincing an individual t o

solve a performance problem, the need for a dramatic, f inal-step gesture ar ises. The posi t ive

discip l ine approach now provides an unexpected, author i tat ive, and counter intui t ive f inal step:

t he Decision Making Leave.

The employee is suspended for one day. He is to ld to return the on fo l lowing day with a f inal

decision: e i ther to solve the immediate problem and make a t o ta l per f ormance commit ment t o

fu l ly acceptable performance in every area of the job, or to resign and seek more satisfying

employment e lsewhere.


19/26



The employee is paid for the day to demonstrate the organizations good fa i th desire to see him

change and stay. He is a lso speci f ical ly advised that i f another problem requir ing discip l inary

action ar ises, he wi l l be terminated.

The unconventional aspect of a paid discip l inary suspension is the element of the non-puni t ive

approach tha t immedia te ly a t t r acts the most a t t en t ion . But t he organ iza t ions tha t have adopt ed

t he process report signi f icant benefi t s:

IT DEMONSTRATES GOOD FAITH.

Most organizations see themselves as decent and enl ightened employers; they want everything

that they do in their employee relat ions pract ices to ref lect and confi rm th is view. Paying the

employee for the day al lows them to send the message that when we say we want the individual

to use the t ime ser iously to th ink through whether th is is the r ight job for h im, were ser ious.

IT TRANSFORMS ANGER INTO GUILT.

Test your exper ience: most employees who receive an unpaid suspension are i rate; many return

embi t te red by the exper ience. But our in ten t , even wi th the o ld system, is no t p r imar i ly to

punish an individual for h is transgressions. I t is to send a wake-up cal l , to get h im to take

responsibi l i ty for h is own behavior and performance. But docking his pay makes the agencys

words hol low. Paying the employee, on the other hand, routinely e l iminates the anger that com-

monly resul ts from f i nal st ep discip l inary t ransactions.

IT S APPROPRIATE FOR ANY JOB

Tradi t ional approaches to discip l ine are typical ly seen as appropr iate only for employees in

operational , d i rect- labor, b lue-col lar jobs. But people problems ar ise throughout the

organization. Publ ic sector organizations often reject tradi t ion al approaches to discip l ine for

professional , exempt, manager ia l employees but f ind no satisfactory al ternative. A decision

making leave is an appropr iate transaction for any individual whose performance vio lates

organizational norms.

IT MAKES L IFE EASIER FOR SUPERVISORS.

Most supervisors hate having to take disciplinary action. Many supervisors themselves have come

up from the ranks and know their subordinates better as peers than as bosses. Using a decision

making leave allows supervisors to handle even the most serious disciplinary problems without

feel i ng the need t o apologize.


20/26



IT GETS RID OF MONEY AS AN ISSUE.

While the employee is away, we want h im to be th inking about the requirements of h is job, h is

own occupational goals, and whether the two can be reconci led. Forcing the employee to worry

about how he wi l l make up for the pay he has lost d i lutes the chances that the more important

issues wil l b e seriously c onsider ed.

IT REDUCES HOSTILITY AND THE RISK OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE.

IT REINFORCES YOUR VALUES.

Most publ ic sector organizat ions t ake pr ide in being fa ir employers and want to be seen as highly

desirable places to work an employer of choice. But tradi t ional , puni t ive discip l ine systems

violate the spir i t of the organizations values. Using a decision making leave and focusing on

individual responsibi l i ty a l lows the discip l ine system to be the most visib le evidence of the

organizations bone-deep commitment to assur ing that i ts values are pract iced, even in the most

d i f f i cu l t si tua t ions.

IT MAKES YOU LOOK GOOD TO A JURY.

Today vir tual ly every termination has the potentia l for chal lenge. Regardless of the facts,

regard less of the law, the im por tant issue to t he judge or a rb i t ra tor o r hear ing of f icer o r j u ry wi l l

be, were you fa ir? I f the organization can demonstrate that not only d id i t have a ser ies of wel l -

document ed, pr ogressively more ser ious discussions wit h t he employee, but t hat i t a lso gave t he

individual a day at i ts own expense to th ink about whether he could perform at a minimal ly

acceptable level and the individual d idn t l ive up to his own word, no stronger argument to

support termination can be made.

THE RESULTS OF DISCIPLINE WITHOUT PUNISHMENT

One of the f i rst organizations to discard i ts tradi t ional d iscip l ine system and implement a

DISCIPLINE W ITHOUT PUNISHMENT approach was the Texas Department of Mental Heal th and Mental

Retardation (TDMHMR). For several years in the late 1970s, turnover was running rampant: on

average, each year over hal f of a l l their employees qui t . They instal led the non-puni t ive

approach in 1979.

In the year bef ore t he procedur e was install ed, syst em-w ide t urnover at TDMHMR was 48.5%. In

t he f i rst year of operation, i t dropped to 31.3%. The fo l low ing year i t dropped again, now t o

18.5%. In t he past a lmost 20 years, employee t urnover has consist entl y rem ained at a

m anageable 20% or l ess per year .


21/26



Since TDMHMR lead the way, dozens of other public sector organizations have adopted a non-

puni t ive procedure for deal ing with the everyday problems of fa i lure to maintain regular

attendance, poor performance, and unacceptable conduct. Their implementations of the system

are always met wi th the same in i t ia l concerns and misconceptions: that somehow, by not making

the employee suffer f inancial ly, we are somehow rewarding misbehavior. That employees wi l l

intentional ly misbehave in order to get a free day off . That employees wi l l v iew the system as a

j ok e or m an age m en t gi m m ick .

Their concerns have been checked, t est ed and proven unf ounded.

One of the greatest advantages of the non-puni t ive approach, organizations report, is that i t

shi f ts the responsibi l i ty for performance management from the supervisor to the employee.

Instead of repr imanding the employee for h is misdeeds, the supervisor now insists that the

individual make a choice: change and stay with the organization, or leave and f ind greener

pastures elsewhere. The digni t ies of both part ies are preserved, but the demand that everyone

adhere t o t he organizations st andards is re inforced.

When Mecklenburg County im plement ed t he DISCIPLINE W ITHOUT PUNISHMENT system a few years ago,

t he f i r st person to r each the point of a decision making leave was a young man who f uncti oned as

t he depart ment recept ionist . He was everything you didn t w ant in an employee arrogant ,

insolent and unconcerned wit h anyone but h im sel f , h is supervisor explained later . He went

t hrough the rem inder steps and quickly r eached the decision-making leave level .

He returned the fo l lowing day, chagr ined. He to ld his supervisor that whi le on the decision

making leave he real ized that a l l h is l i fe hed real ly wanted to be a barber. He had cal led al l the

barber schools in t he county, had found one w it h a class st art i ng in thr ee weeks, and asked i f he

could resign volunt ar i ly and w ork t he t hree weeks unti l h is class st art ed. She inst antly agreed.

His perfor mance dur ing t hose three weeks was excel lent , she reported. And j ust bef ore he

le f t he wro te a mem o to every county employee he had worked wi th , te l l ing them he was leaving

to go to barber school , and asking that in six months, when they needed a haircut, to look him

up!

Not every story has that happy ending. But publ ic sector organizations that adopt the posi t ive

approach discover that problems get resolved faster, supervisory stress decreases, and challenges

t o discip l ine and discharge act ion are signi f icant ly reduced.


22/26



THE STATE OF GEORGIA STUDY

In 1996 the State of Georgia decided to implement the D ISCIPLINE W ITHOUT PUNISHMENT system in

every agency throughout t he st ate.

Late in 1998 a major study was completed of the resul ts of DISCIPLINE W ITHOUT PUNISHMENT i n the

fi rst f ive agencies to implement the approach. In addi t ion to other research, 282 supervisors in

t hese f i ve agencies were surveyed about t heir exper iences wit h t he new syst em.

In his November 13, 1998 letter to every state agency executive, Dana Russell, Commissioner of

t he St ate Meri t Syst em of Personnel Administrat ion, w rot e:

A l i t t le over a year ago f ive Georgia St ate agencies st reamlined t heir abi l i t y

to handle discip l inary act ion by instal l ing DISCIPLINE W ITHOUT PUNISHMENT as

their d iscip l ine pol icy.

Last June, surveys were sent t o the per sonnel of fi cers and supervi sors of

t hose f ive agencies t o learn how w el l t he program had served t hem. A glance

at the resul ts reveals that the overwhelming major i ty of managers and

supervisors report very positive results. For example, out of 282 supervisors,

63% repor t t hat t he Perf orm ance Impr ovement Discussion prevented

discipl inary act i on every t i me. That alone represents a significant savings

of t ime and product iv i t y. I t is a lso encouraging to note t hat only 7% of t he

employees who been the subject of formal d iscip l ine under D ISCIPLINE W ITHOUT

PUNISHMENT have exhibi ted a negative reaction to the new program. Personnel

off icers report that of four terminations of classi f ied employees, there have

been no appeal s.

Resul t s l ike t hese are the reason that , in t went y years of use of DISCIPLINE

W ITHOUT PUNISHMENT in major companies and publ ic organizations, not one

organization has decided t o abandon i t .

Traditional adversarial approaches to discipl ine may indeed convince some employees to shape

up, o t hers to sh ip out . But pun i t ive tact ics won t p roduce employees who are commi t ted t o the

goals of the organization. Moving to a responsibil i ty-based discipline system is increasingly being

accepted as a best pract i ce in publ i c sector organizations at a l l levels.


23/26



PEER REVIEW

One of DISCIPLINE W ITHOUT PUNISHMENT S great benefi ts is that i t makes you look good to a jury. But

even bett er t han looking good to a j ury is avoiding facing a jury or an arbi tr ator, or

administrat ive law j udge, or EEOC hear ing off icer at a l l . Peer Review i s a formal managementsystem an Alternative Dispute Resolution system for resolving the everyday complaints and

disputes that arise in all companies. It is a grievance procedure for an organization's non-union

work f o rce tha t can prevent p rob lems f rom ever get t ing to cour t .

Most government agencies that have adopted the approach fo l low a simi lar procedure. When an

employee can' t get a problem solved by ta lking to his or her boss and fo l lowing the normal chain

of command, he or she can elect to use the Peer Review procedure for a f inal and binding

resolut ion of the complaint. The employee presents his case to a panel made up of both tra ined

employee volunteers people just l ike himself and managers. He explains the problem and

t el ls the panel what he f eels should be done to solve i t .

Panel members ( typical ly three peers and two managers) ask questions, interview witnesses,

research precedents and review pol icy. When the panel feels suff ic iently wel l informed, each

mem ber cast s a secret bal lot t o grant or t o deny t he employee's gr ievance. Major i t y ru les.

A letter explain ing the panel 's decision is sent to the employee. Al l panel members sign; no

minor i t y opinions are permit t ed. Everyone gets back t o work. The issue is set t l ed.

Organizations that have implemented Peer Review report that i t creates a problem solvingpartnership between employees and managers. I t bui lds employee respect for management and

t he t ough decisions managers are of t en required t o make. I t demonst rat es management 's genuine

bel ief in decision-making at the lowest possible level . Peer Review proves management's

convict ion t hat empl oyees are tr ust ed partners in the enterpr ise.

But isn t g iving employees t he power t o overturn m anagement s decisions j ust t urning the asylum

over to t he inmates?

No, exper ienced organizations report. Wit h Peer Review, complaint s are heard, invest igated and

resolved by people who know your organization. Outside arbi trators and mediators, judges and

j ur ies do n't car e ab ou t you r co m pan y. You r em ploy ee s do. And f or ge t op en doo r pol ic ies

t hey just don' t do t he j ob. Employees are usual ly skept ical ; court s rarely uphold t hem. Open door

syst ems can't work wel l when m anagers are expect ed t o back each other up.


24/26



Any organization impl ement ing a peer review compl aint pr ocedure maintains a lot of control over

the process. I t decides what complaints are appropr iate for a panel to hear and which fa l l

outside i ts jur isdict ion. Management decides whos el ig ib le to serve as a panel ist, how the pool

of potentia l panel ists wi l l be tra ined, and how individuals wi l l be selected when a case comes up

for rev iew.

When the City of Carrol l ton, Texas instal led i ts system several years ago, they provided for the

ci ty manager in conjunction with personnel to decide who wi l l be panel ists. Panel ists can

volunteer others, volunteer themselves, and supervisors can recommend. They ended up with

more vo lunteers than t hey were ab le to t ra in . They decided to t ra in a to t a l o f t h i r ty pane l ist s

six Depart ment / Division Managers, six supervi sors, and 18 non-management empl oyees.

Kat hryn Usrey, Carrol l t ons d irect or of personnel, act s as the panel 's faci l i t ator . She insures that

al l documentation and witnesses are avai lable to the panel . Whi le she doesn t have a vote, she

does have the author i t y t o advise t he panel about t he boundar ies of t heir ro les.

Besides getting employee complaints resolved, Ms. Usrey reports another benefit it helps keep

supervisors from making i l logical decisions. Its easy to get a supervisor to rethink his position by

asking, How do you th ink t h is wi l l p lay out i f he t akes i t t o a jury of h is peers?

"The hardest part is sel l ing t he syst em t o supervisors, Usrey said. They fear t hat you're tur ning

control of the workplace over to the employees." To counteract that, the City held a ser ies of

"massive" employee meetings chaired by the City Manager.

Peer Review is efficient and inexpensive. Once an employee becomes an adversary, costs

bal loon. With Peer Review, salary and travel costs are typical ly the only expenses. The

atmosphere of a panel meeting is businessl ike with no compl icated rules of evidence, no

court room t rappings, no lawyer s. Issues get surfaced, explored and resolved.

Final ly, your employees can be trusted. Peers don't automat ical ly st ick t ogether ; t here 's no us

vs. t hem on the panel . Your employees are j ust as concerned about fa i rness and j ust ice as you

are. Three-t o-tw o spl i t s betw een peers and managers are rare.

But the best part of Peer Review is i ts abi l i ty to keep unions at bay and problems out of court.

The only benefi t union organizers can st i l l del iver is an impart ia l gr ievance syst em. Peer Review

removes the or ganizer 's last t ool and can keep a company union-f ree.


25/26



Equal ly important, an employee whose complaint has been heard and rejected by his peers is

unlikely to call a lawyer. Courts uphold ADR decisions. And several courts have held that

companies can require em ployees t o use int ernal processes before t urning to t he court s and have

ref used t o al low t erminat ed employees t o sue for w rongful d ischarge aft er losing an internal Peer

Review grievance.

IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT , PUBLIC SECTOR LEADS THEPACK

Innovative performance management systems are no longer found exclusively in pr ivate sector

organizations. The evidence is clear Americas cities, state and federal agencies, and other

publ ic sector organizations are taking a leading role in creating and implementing novel and

highly eff ect i ve approaches t o managing people on the j ob.


26/26


ABOUT DICK GROTE

Dick Grot e is Chairm an and CEO of Grote Consult ing Corporat ion in Dallas, Texas, and t he developerof the GroteApproach

SMweb-based performance management system. Hes the author of Th e

Complete Guide to Performance Appraisal, The Performance Appraisal Question an d Answer Bookand Discipline Without Punishment. Dicks latest book, Forced Ranking: Making PerformanceManagement Work, w as publ ished in 2005 by t he Harvar d Business School Press.

ABOUT GROTEAPPROACH, LTD.

GroteApproach, Ltd. , is dedicated to del iver ing the technology, serv ices and c l ient care thatt ransform organizat ions f rom best-ef for t c l imates into results-dr iven cul tures. The GroteApproach web-based performance management system is the culmination of Dick Grotes mission to transformthe way organizat ions manage and develop their most valuable resource their people. I t ref lectsbest practices in strategy-based performance management as identif ied in Dicks 25 years ofresearch and consult ing with hundreds of sophist icated organizat ions throughout the wor ld. I tscombination of unrivaled expert ise and superior technology make the GroteApproach system anideal f i t for organizat ions large and smal l .

ABOUT GROTE CONSULTING CORPORATION

Grote Consult ing Corporation is one of America's best-known and most respected specializedmanagement consult ing f irms. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Grote Consult ing helps sophist icated

organizat ions, large and smal l , implement best-pract ice performance management systems. I tsc l ients inc lude some of the most prest igious organizat ions, publ ic and pr ivate, in North America,Western Europe, and Southeast Asia.

Copyright 2000 Dick Grote. All rights reserved. Reproduction is prohibited.

15303 DALLAS PARKWAY, SUITE 645 ADDISON, TEXAS 75001

800.734.5475 www.GroteApproach.com www.GroteConsul t ing.com

public personnel management journal-public sector organizations-todays innovative leaders in...

Documents