Who Governs the Staff, Governs the Company?
/Pros and Cons of the electronic „Intranet Personnel Assessment System“/

Annotation

Based on experience with multiple implementations of the “Intranet Personnel Assessment System” /IPAS/ the following article discusses the options, benefits and limitations of the electronic model of the employee evaluation scheme. It also covers the prerequisites for its entirely outsourced successful implementation.

It is not by any coincidence that the title reminds a sophisticated reader of the famous: „Who governs the past, governs the future.“ Except for the question mark we really borrowed and only slightly modified this citation. Considering the existing conditions in the Czech Republic in relation to the original source („1984“, G. Orwell) it makes an interesting point.

But it is not our intention to bring any historicist analysis. This is rather a fact-oriented essay examining the extent to which (if at all) is it possible to utilize the personnel assessment system to gain control and/or the real “grip on power” within the company. The following question is: To what extent is the more “impersonal” electronic model well suited for the purpose?

Without getting into too much detail the general understanding is that personnel assessment is one of the most important tools to control and manage any company regardless of size. One common mistake involves reduction of its applicability solely and directly to the area of HRM. However, its crucial role and determining nexus with long-term planning and the Strategic Planning in particular goes very often unnoticed, even in the specialized research and literature.

Everyone can perhaps also agree that the principal goals and purpose of the assessment include:

description of the existing conditions within the key managerial positions;
screening of the current capacity and potential of the participants including their professional knowledge, skills and performance, personal qualities, team-work abilities, hardiness, etc.;
selection of the „personal reserves“ in compliance with the „Target Qualification Structure“ /TQS/;
detailed feedback for the participating employees;
collection of data for advanced strategic planning.

There will probably also be little to no discussion concerning the desired characteristics of the assessment systems, which unquestionably include:

stability of the method/approach;
standardized procedures (enabling to conduct direct comparisons and interfirm benchmarking);
space for active approach by the participating employees;
minimizing the time-load (for both the persons conducting and participating in the assessment);
possibility of objective correction of the outcome (based on direct confrontation of the views);
detailed feedback (for the client, participating persons, individual departments/divisions);
potential to obtain a vast amount of reliable information and documentation;
strictly allocated access to the data;
data and information security, etc.

At this point it might look like that there is only one simple question left to address: Which assessment model to use? But the more in-depth we think about the problem the more clearly we realize that this issue only seems to be a simple one. In fact, it is necessary to ask many more questions, e.g. to what extent:

is it possible to fully replace the established „paper-based“ model by the less „human“ electronic one?;
is it possible to sacrifice the direct human interaction for the sake of minimizing the the subjective element?;
will the superiority of the assessor influence the attitude of a participating person during the confrontation of their potentially very radically different opinions?;
will a detailed feedback offered to the employees together with the opportunity to participate in determination of their own future career be sufficiently motivating to win their open and responsible attitude towards the assessment?;
will surviving formalism and/or possible unhealthy corporate environment and culture within a company impact the quality of the outcome?;
can the overall quality of the assessment be influenced by low “computer literacy”, or questionable expertise or support provided by the in-house IT experts?;
will the advantages of the generated electronic data outweigh the deeply inherent “secure feelings” connected with having the usual and still after all tangible piles of paper?;
will the guarantees of data and information protection be considered sufficient by the participants, etc.?

Back in 2001, after evaluation of possible impact of all the above listed aspects, we decided to “sacrifice” the illusive “humanity” for the better effectiveness. This decision triggered development of the electronic „Intranet Personnel Assessment System“ /IPAS/ that has already been implemented with several of our major clients. The following section brings a brief description of this mechanism.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES

IPAS has a modular structure. This type of design allows to reduce the workload related to the characteristics constant in time (e.g. personality profile, etc.) in subsequent assessment rounds. On the other hand, it also provides room to expand the system to include any new designated problem issues if needed. The entire implementation is fully outsourced.

The cornerstone is an assessment that takes place in the context of „superior – direct subordinate.“ However, the system has the option to include evaluation by an external assessor and of course also the „360degrees“ assessment.

The starting point is “self-evaluation” in the „Self-Assessment File“ /SAF/, which is mandatory for all participating employees including top management. It is followed by assessment of direct subordinate(s) in the „Confidential File“ /CF/ (to some extent using the identical items as in the SAF.) The evaluated person has no access to its contents.

The individual assessment opinions expressed by both parties (i.e. superior vs. subordinate) are subject to review and any discrepancies are clarified in the course of a structured „Assessment Interview“ /AI/. During this process the superior has to make an unambiguous decision about the future of the assessed employee until the next assessment round. The conclusion can range from a proposal for immediate dismissal to immediate promotion with all the relevant consequences (e.g. salary, career-path, continuing education, etc.) The official record of the AI constitutes the only written document in the whole system.

With respect to the sensitivity of the matter the „Assessment Committée“ /AC/ appointed in advance is empowered to find an impartial solution to any misunderstandings and/or irregularities.

The “personality questionnaire” /MBTI/ and the „Styles of Influencing Questionnaire“ /SIQ/ are usually part of the IPAS only during its first year of implementation. They provide basis for the creation of psychological profile, which is distributed to the management of the company as well as to all the participating employees.

Apart from the aforesaid AI “record” all the generated documentation exists solely in electronic format. The acquired data are further processed in highly specific sophisticated way using the SPSS program. This tool unleashes the opportunity to take into account and grade the qualities of individual assessors and the reliability of their evaluation in particular.

IPAS is also designed to support work with the company’s own internal standards, provided a sufficient representative sample is available. These can subsequently be employed in the process of recruitment and selection of new personnel, for the purposes of (partial) benchmarking in relation to companies of similar type or orientation, etc.

DATA/INFORMATION SECURITY

This issue has been treated quite understandably with paramount care and attention. The main elements of the security include:

identity of all participants is protected by using five-digit „identification code“ /IC/ instead of names. This code is disclosed only to the particular employee and his direct superior with “read-only” access rights to the assessment file;
the next security level represents the „verification code“ /VC/ disclosed to the particular employee only;
the index of all the participating employees’ ICs is accessible exclusively by the HREO;
all the access rights are strictly defined, any unauthorized action is immediately reported;
the entire IPAS is located on a “dedicated server,” which minimizes any infraction risks within the company network. The HREO is responsible for the physical security;
all final recommendations and findings refer exclusively to the ICs;
only a limited series of numbered issues of the summary report is delivered and the data are recorded on a password protected DVD, etc.

The security elements described above might almost look like overkill, but one rule always applies – “there is no absolute security!”

THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

The briefings for assessors are followed by a warm-up period for all the involved personnel via Intranet (approximately 4-5 days.) ensued by „sharp-operation“ (approximately 13-20 days). During this stage all the participans are responsible for completing their self-evaluations and every assessor has to evaluate all of their direct subordinates including the „Assessment Interview.“

Routine for an employee with no direct subordinates:: The participant logs into the system, enters his identification and verification code and completes the self-evaluation. This phase is followed by setting a date for „Assessment Interview“ with the assessor. After the interview the „future“ of the employee within the company is clearly set until next assessment round. Exception could be the decision to dismiss the participant based on his or her evaluation results. The estimated time is approximately 50‘.
Routine for a manager with direct subordinates:: After logging into the system the first step is to complete his or her own self-evaluation. The next move is to carry out the assessment of the designated subordinates using access rights to their respective „Confidential File(s).“ However, only after completing this evaluation step is the manager allowed to access the corresponding „Self-Assessment File(s).“ During the subsequent „Assessment Interview“ he will record the concurrent and contradictory points and the discussed conclusion in the minutes and submit the record. The estimated time is approximately 45‘/ employee, but this estimate decreases with growing experience.

OUTPUTS

Apart from the final summary report embracing the entire company it is also possible to generate numerous discretionary profiles of the firm. They can be based on any chosen filter, i.e. sorted according to the divisions, departments, socio-professional classification, etc. The comprehensive analyses and individual profiles of select employees could be included within any chosen view.

The so-called “summary profiles” comprising of all the evaluations of subordinates completed by each single assessor proved to be especially information-intensive and extremely valuable for the future quality increase.

It is in the clients’ special interest to employ this system in synergy with “corporate culture” or “overall satisfaction” surveys. The IPAS outputs represent an important co-indicator for a comprehensive view and an invaluable resource for setting up prospective remedies.

IPAS vs. “TRADITIONAL” ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS

Comparison with the “traditional” system, which we likewise used to employ in the past, reveals the following advantages of IPAS:

lower and/or more often controlled manifestations of false self-representation;
possibility to revise the tough initial „evaluation baseline“ usually set by an assessor with multiple subordinates;
increase of quality in correlation with the number of conducted repetitions;
important decrease in subjectivity of the assessment due to direct confrontation of identical items;
possibility to compare changes in evaluation of particular individuals in time during the repeated assessment rounds;
in cases of special interest - opportunity to evaluate the course as well as the quality of assessment process concerning the particular employee (i.e. frequency and sharpness of the changes made or reflected in the preceding evaluations, quantity and character of interference with self-evaluation and assessment, etc.);
high data and information security;
error-free transfer of the “raw data” for the purposes of further processing;
significant decrease of time and manpower requirements on the part of the client, and thus:
substantial reduction of execution and processing times with an impact on availability of the final recommendations for the client, etc.

No direct comparison of the IPAS and the “traditional” system has ever been conducted within the same company. However, a person with extensive experience could conclude that there would be no substantial discrepancies in the pattern of findings between the two.

There is one single pattern quite consistently found under the IPAS in any setting. It is a sharp discrepancy between the circle of individuals designated as “personal reserves” before the evaluation vs. the group of individuals who are identified as ”true” personal reserves, i.e. based on the results of the assessment. In the absence of any deeper analysis we can only assume that there might exist a possible nexus between comparatively lower level of self-feedback and self-correction control associated with the electronic model (e.g. indolence, fear/hesitation to modify the assessment or bring it into conformity with the existing materials, etc.).

No substantial differences in occurrence of problem situations were recorded; typical issues related to the implementation of IPAS included solely minor technical problems (e.g. internal network collapse, under-equipped or malfunctioning computers, etc.).

PREREQUISITES OF SUCCESS

These premises are not any different for each and every one of the other larger projects and they are not IPAS specific. They include:

support of top management, influential „opinion-makers“ and stakeholders;
prospective orientation and full awareness of the goals on the part of employees;
structured introduction of the results on all levels;
uncompromising implementation and enforcement of the conclusions;
data and information security guarantees;
introduction of the personnel assessment as a regular activity.

CONCLUSION

On one hand, IPAS represents a very sophisticated and complex system. On the other hand, it is still only a technique to which the famous saying applies: „ ... every technique is solely and only as good as the people who use it ...“.

The quality of the output and suggested remedies is very closely connected to the quality of preparatory work and overall attitude of all the players. This primarily involves top executives and it gradually expands to all the managerial layers of the company in question.

The final recommendations constitute merely a tool. However, the criterion of success for the client is represented by the implementation of adequate and proactive solutions. Rapid increase in overall effectiveness and performance of the company are among the typical short-term indicators of the transformation. The long-term results range from changes in general atmosphere, satisfaction and identification of the employees with the firm, etc.

The CEO of one of the companies that adopted the system in the course of several consecutive years evaluated it as follows: “… it offers … almost a scary picture of the company broken down into the smallest pieces … and whatever you can disassemble in such a sophisticated way, you can without doubt in the same sophisticated way put back together …” And the one who commands this opportunity is the one who also, beyond all question, governs the company!

Who Governs the Staff, Governs the Company?/Pros and Cons of the electronic „Intranet Personnel Assessment System“/