In another assignment in Human Performance Improvement class I was given the assignment to focus upon a creating change to a fictional organization (or part three) it focused upon the external stakeholders involved and how HPI can be used towards this group. Again, this is a fictional account with the details listed in an assignment and the parameters dealt with worst case scenario type issues in an organization so therefore with the idea of unlimited budgets and resources (I know when does that happens?) this assignment was crafted with those variables in mind. Please post any comments or questions to facilitate a discussion in the comments sections below.
Focusing on the Human Performance Technology (HPT) Model and building on the Cause Analysis mechanism, in the form of student surveys we build a foundation to gain an understanding of the environment factors which impact the team’s and organization’s overall productivity. We also implement employee, management surveys to recreate the team spirit that is missing from the department. Therefore, using the HPT Model as the basis, we have selected five interventions for this project as defined in the Performance Support Tool 9.1:
- Personal Development Interventions (Feedback).
- Performance Support Interventions (Documentation and Standards)
- Organizational Design and Development Inventions (Empowerment-Team Strategies)
- Human Resource Development Interventions (Organization Growth-Management Development/Individual Growth-360-degree Appraisals).
- Organizational Design and Development (Organizational Values-Culture).
Of all the five interventions chosen, the number one intervention I deemed necessary to the success of this project is the Personal Development Interventions- Feedback. (Van Tiem, et al., 2012). This way team management The FA email team and site directors can discuss the issues of the Email backlog, low student survey score, lack of support, etc., in a collaborative manner. Done without fears of corrective action or further isolation occurring with the 360-degree feedback model (Hamilton, & Patel, 2012). This I feel is the easiest method to communicate solutions regarding the dysfunctional structure of procedures and processes that the organization’s customers are complaining about. Since the organizational culture is embedded and the likelihood of a miraculous 360 change for the entire department or organization will not happen overnight. I believe this is a more team oriented approach that allows all those concerned to gain an understanding how to improve their overall team performance and create an immediate but practical solution for productivity. This speedy intervention from an internal standpoint, allows immediate feedback and focus on the problem. From an external standpoint it immediately deals with issues that presently concern the student body. If we were to implement the other, protracted interventions first, the University would possibly face a major exodus of students as a result.
By administering a 360-degree survey the employees express their individual perceptions through the rating process of how the organization perceives them and their effectiveness in their job roles (Hazucha, et al,.1993). Included in that is how effective each individual perceives the impact of their coworkers and management staff this is all done anonymously so that the data is accurate as possible. Coupled with the data gathered by the student surveys employees are then presented with all the material in a supportive atmosphere so that it facilitates effective coaching and development amongst the team members (Hamilton, & Patel, 2012). In this environment constructive feedback is shared between the employees and management staff so the performance responsibilities are clearly understood and the team’s performance can be improved. 360-degree feedback meetings and duplicate surveys are rescheduled for reinforcement purposes on a monthly basis are added to complement the original surveys and 360-degree meetings. This is done to judge the impact of the program upon the initial perceptions of the employees and what degree of change has occurred as a result.
| Steps to administrating 360 Feedback Sessions |
| 1. Conduct Student Survey |
| 2. Gather Student Surveys |
| 3. Conduct Employee and Management Surveys |
| 4. Gather Employee and Management Surveys |
| 5. Tally all three surveys to rate the effectiveness of Management and Staff |
| 6. Constructive group feedback (through FA Jeopardy/team strategy meetings) |
| 7. Constructive individual feedback (through role playing/discussion of strengths and areas of development regarding performance) |
| 8. Monthly Follow up Surveys |
My second choice was the Performance Support Intervention of Documentation and Standards, although I feel that employees need to be clear about the job requirements for their daily tasks, the Feedback intervention (360-degree feedback) would cover the basics of the intervention (Van Tiem, et al., 2012). I would also add that the FA Email team overall customer service score on the student surveys was 63%, therefore one can concur the foundations for job expectations is already exists. Understanding why the performance gap happened and how to reach the desired performance in this situation could not be solved with just repeating current policies and procedures, to the employees. Discussion for solutions for faulty procedures and policies as covered in the Feedback intervention would astern workable approaches to the enormous time sensitive problem that faces the team.
My third choice is the Organizational Design and Development Invention of Empowerment: Team Strategies again the basics of this intervention will be emphasized in the Feedback intervention (Van Tiem, et al., 2012). The problem here is that the FA email team is on an island by themselves, the organizational culture divides its departments into task oriented teams and by the type of Financial Aid knowledge needed to complete daily tasks. Included into the factors the strengthen this division are the competitive goals set by the organization which increases the negative effects that occur. Stressing team exclusion is part of the organizational culture this problem is far-reaching to the point that there is a division between the FA email team and its management staff. The Beginning for the viable lines of communication with Feedback intervention starts the baby steps to becoming a true cohesive unit and meets the basic needs of all the stakeholders, now.
My fourth choice is Human Resource Development Interventions whether it is Organization Growth with Management Development or Individual Growth with 360-degree Appraisals the feedback approach is well and alive in both methods (Van Tiem, et al., 2012). In the 360-degree appraisals the customer surveys I have included in the Feedback intervention echoes here. However, there is no intent to “soften the blow” of the information given to the employee with the Organizational Culture that exists such an exercise would have a negative effect. This is due to the lack of knowledge that team management and FA site directors have of the expected job duties of the FA email team therefore without further information about these duties the ratings will be askew. The same holds true from the Management Development approach this is a lengthy approach that addresses the lack of interpersonal skills of the management staff, however due to time constraints training to bridge this lack of knowledge and personality is not suitable for this situation (Van Tiem, et al., 2012). The break between team management and the team itself is based on the lack of problem solving skills of management which this method adheres to solving. But an extensive needs assessment is required to fully understand that performance gap, something the organization is not willing to endure as the issues of low productivity numbers by the FA email team are affecting the rest or the organization.
To explain why my final choice is Organizational Design and Development, Organizational Values-Culture there is a realization that the Organizational culture is the initial cause for divisions in the department and the rest or the organization (Van Tiem, et al., 2012). This division is paralyzing the entire Organization to the point where simple restructuring of teams or the temporary assignment of employees to assist the FA email team is almost impossible. From a clinical and realistic standpoint, the organization needs to change entirely but not all of the stakeholders can wait for widespread modifications. As the survey data shows the student population is not elated with the University’s performance so far, and will not be patient. With any Organizational culture there is resistance to change for the organization to be successful in meeting the needs of its students it must have zero resistance to change. Therefore, the Feedback intervention is chosen to focus mainly upon the immediate team involved with this issue to get to the heart of the matter and work on creative solutions that address the issue at hand.
The best practices as demonstrated by the 360-degree feedback implementation at Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. would be replicated here at Omir University (Caruso, 2011). For example, in the survey process, Starwood decided that their survey questions would be adjusted or aimed at the skill levels of management, not just the employees. Furthermore, this process addressed individual strengths along with areas that still needed development, through positive assessments and not the usual one on one coaching methods, that have considerable negative conations. This way everyone can add into this data their unique perceptions of how they contribute to the organization, what they do best and what they believe they need improvement with on a daily basis, without judgment.
As at Starwood, the 360-degree feedback implemented at Omir University would give the entire team a structure or foundation of “what to focus on” the team’s knowledge of individual expectations so that bridging any performance gaps will be simple (Caruso, 2011). From an organizational standpoint, the benefits gained from these best practices is a foundation of data to grow upon. Additionally, from this data, the University’s Human Resource department can develop additional programs with a distinct scope that reaches into each part of the department. This extended reach allows the University to reduce the waste of previous resources similar to the implementation at Starwood (Caruso, 2011).
References
Caruso, Karen N. (2011)“Case Study: Starwood Hotels Takes 360 Degree Feedback to a New Level” viaPeople Insight – Performance Management & Succession Planning Blog Mon, Aug 29, 2011 ViaPeople Retrieved on February 23, 2017 from: http://web.viapeople.com/viaPeople-blog/bid/65018/Case-Study-Starwood-Hotels-Takes-360-Degree-Feedback-to-a-New-Level
Hamilton, Diane, & Patel, Nilesh (2012) “Best practices in 360-degree feedback” Forward HR Aug 22, 2012 In Business Madison Retrieved on February 16, 2017 from: http://www.ibmadison.com/Blogger/Forward-HR/August-2012/Best-practices-in-360-degree-feedback/
Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A., & Schneider, R. J. (1993). The impact of 360‐degree feedback on management skills development. Human Resource Management, 32(2‐3), 325-351.
Van Tiem, D., Moseley, J. L., & Dessinger, J. C. (2012). Fundamentals of performance improvement: Optimizing results through people, process, and organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
Organizational Clarity 