Role based descriptions of contribution define the nature of the contribution appropriate to the incumbent in the role. Any description of contribution at the level of the role is nevertheless limited in the following ways:
· Role based descriptions are not specific enough. They do not set down what specifically needs to be delivered by an individual, to positively impact on desired results, in the next reporting cycle. Two people may be fulfilling the same role but, as a result of different external demands, may be required to focus on very different deliverables going forward. The issues facing a Provincial Executive in the Northern Cape, for example, may be very different from those facing the Provincial Executive in Gauteng. As a result the nature of their contribution in the next reporting cycle would not be the same, even though they are both employed as Provincial Executives.
· Role based descriptions are static. They assume the same level of task maturity of everyone in the role. Practically speaking, somebody who has only been in a role for six months however is unlikely to be able to contribute in the same way that a seasoned professional who has occupied the role for a number of years could do so. To expect otherwise would be unrealistic.
· For leaders, what needs to be given by them in terms of the Care and Growth of direct reports tends, in role based descriptions, to be too generic. Statements like “regular feedback on contribution to standard given to all direct reports” or “ensures people have the tools/resources required to do their jobs” are platitudes. They do not specify the changes in individual direct report(s) which constitute the individual leaders’ Care and Growth contribution in a given period of time.
CARE AND GROWTH CONTRIBUTION: GENERIC
|
CARE |
|
1) Knows his / her people well and is interested in them as people not just as employees. 2) Is there for his / her people not the other way around/ the line of service is down not up the line. 3) Spends sufficient time with direct reports in team meetings, one-on-one meetings, in the field ‘watching the game’. 4) Listens to and respects the views and opinions of his / her people. Relationships with his / her people are characterized by mutual trust and respect. |
|
MEANS |
|
1) Ensures people know the mission, vision, values and objectives of the company. 2) Ensures individuals know what is expected of them and how their jobs contribute to the required results. 3) Ensures people have the tools / resources they require to do their jobs. 4) Ensures structures, systems and processes enable their people to make the contribution required of them. 5) Ensures that people have the decision making authority to do their jobs. |
|
ABILITY |
|
1) Ensures formal training and development is effective in ensuring that employees have the competencies required to do their jobs. 2) Develop his/her employees understanding of the business and how it is performing. 3) Effectively coaches direct reports both in terms of how to do their job and why the job should be done. 4) Facilitates employee growth through regular review and deliberate changes in employee accountability. |
|
ACCOUNTABILITY |
|
1) People are held accountable for their contribution not for what they are getting out / results. 2) Regular reviews of contribution / feedback at an individual level are conducted. 3) Only once people have the means and ability are they held accountable. 4) People are disciplined for deliberate malevolence and censured for carelessness. 5) Those who contribute to the desired standard are acknowledged / praised. 6) Those who consistently go the extra mile are rewarded for doing so.
|
For all these reasons Schuitema advocates the following two step approach to clarifying contribution:
STEP ONE is the clarification of priorities/what results require focus on right now. The critical results can either be taken directly off the scoreboard or determined from the current key issues and indicators of success if they were addressed. Clarity of results provides the context for then specifying the contribution required by each person to positively impact on the results to be achieved. Without this context what people need to do could be anything.
STEP TWO is the determination of a set of deliverables per individual. That is a clear delineation of what each person needs to affect or produce which is of added value in the next reporting period.
The reporting period may vary but should probably not exceed ± 90 days. This is because it is relatively easy to see what needs to be done in the next 3-4 months. Beyond that time frame contribution becomes increasingly vague. The 90 day period also provides flexibility. If what is done does not produce the required outcome (Possibility Three of the Four Possibilities outlined earlier) different actions/deliverables can be affected in the next reporting cycle.
Assigned deliverables need to meet the following criteria:
· They should contribute to achieving a result. If there is no connection between an individual’s contribution and a result(s), the contribution should obviously not be made. This is seemingly not the case, but if, for example, there was no relationship between convincing a debtor to pay (the debt collector’s contribution) and money in the bank (the desired outcome) there would be no reason to have debt collectors.
· They should be unique in the sense that they are specific to an individual at a point in time and in terms of his/her unique circumstances. Also unique in that any deliverable should be assigned to one person only. As soon as more than one person is accountable for a deliverable, no one is accountable.
· They should be specific and concrete such that it should be possible to answer the question “was this done/delivered? - ‘yes’ or ‘no’“. If yes, “was it done / delivered on or above standard?”
· They should be appropriate to the role or level in the organisation. The deliverables in leadership positions, if appropriate, should contribute primarily to enabling others (through the provision of care, means, ability and accountability) rather than directly contributing to the results.
· They should provide growth for the person. That is, they should be stretching but achievable.
· They should be time bound. That is specific to the next 90 days/appropriate reporting cycle.
Tags: business growth, Contribution, performance evaluation, Performance Excellence, Results, Schuitema, Wendy Lambourne
