<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Performance Review or Effectivness Appraisal &#8211; Be Mindful of What Your Systems Communicate!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/performance-review-or-effectivness-appraisal-be-mindful-of-what-your-systems-communicate/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/performance-review-or-effectivness-appraisal-be-mindful-of-what-your-systems-communicate</link>
	<description>Equipping Managers via Requisite Organization Systems Design.  Talent Management, Leadership, Organization Design.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:30:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michelle Malay Carter</title>
		<link>http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/performance-review-or-effectivness-appraisal-be-mindful-of-what-your-systems-communicate/comment-page-1#comment-3556</link>
		<dc:creator>Michelle Malay Carter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:25:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/?p=623#comment-3556</guid>
		<description>Hi Scot,

Thanks for the comment and question.  I think organizations need to hire executive level HR folks (level 4 capabable minimum) and hold them accountable for comprehensive people systems, not just piece and part implementation which is level 3 work.  If someone is not capable and accountable for integrating the system, you will get what you have, a process created in a vacuum.  L3 serial process/current operation/best practice work is valuable but if you want an integrated system, you must staff (and pay) at L4 or higher.  Many organizations don&#039;t understand what strategic HR is so they don&#039;t want to pay executive level salaries for it.  When executives only view HR as the people who plan picnics and tell employees they have body odor, that&#039;s what they pay for, that&#039;s what they get.

Regards,

Michelle</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Scot,</p>
<p>Thanks for the comment and question.  I think organizations need to hire executive level HR folks (level 4 capabable minimum) and hold them accountable for comprehensive people systems, not just piece and part implementation which is level 3 work.  If someone is not capable and accountable for integrating the system, you will get what you have, a process created in a vacuum.  L3 serial process/current operation/best practice work is valuable but if you want an integrated system, you must staff (and pay) at L4 or higher.  Many organizations don&#8217;t understand what strategic HR is so they don&#8217;t want to pay executive level salaries for it.  When executives only view HR as the people who plan picnics and tell employees they have body odor, that&#8217;s what they pay for, that&#8217;s what they get.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Michelle</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Scot Herrick</title>
		<link>http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/performance-review-or-effectivness-appraisal-be-mindful-of-what-your-systems-communicate/comment-page-1#comment-3546</link>
		<dc:creator>Scot Herrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:38:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/?p=623#comment-3546</guid>
		<description>I think the evolution of review system in a company, though, tends to go through the &quot;results only&quot; environment first. There is an appeal to &quot;objective&quot; results and we all find out later that results miss effectiveness.

It&#039;s like saying you want Terrell Owens on your NFL football team because he makes 20 touchdown catches a year, the objective result, while he destroys team chemistry reducing the effectiveness of the overall team.

Is there a way we can get companies to set up systems to bypass results first and move directly to effectiveness?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the evolution of review system in a company, though, tends to go through the &#8220;results only&#8221; environment first. There is an appeal to &#8220;objective&#8221; results and we all find out later that results miss effectiveness.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s like saying you want Terrell Owens on your NFL football team because he makes 20 touchdown catches a year, the objective result, while he destroys team chemistry reducing the effectiveness of the overall team.</p>
<p>Is there a way we can get companies to set up systems to bypass results first and move directly to effectiveness?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

