Results-Based Measurement
This morning I'd like to briefly discuss several methods of employee evaluation used by U.S. companies, with a particular focus on "Results-Based Measurement," or "RBM" for short.
RBM rests on the idea that customers are not interested in hearing how hard a company has worked, or what techniques have been tried. Customers want results: the desired product or service provided in a timely manner with high standards of quality for a reasonable price. The customer who is picking up his car at the repair shop wants to know if it's running, not what training the mechanic received, or what procedures he used to fix the problem.
Results-Based Measurement stands in contrast to other methods of performance evaluation that use such measurements as employee activity, objectives completion, and competency. And, needless to say, proponents of RBM find significant weaknesses in each of these other approaches.
Take activity-based measurement, for example. It focuses on how employees' time is spent, emphasizing behaviors that are means, rather than ends. Proponents of RBM point out that research has demonstrated that if employers measure activity, employees generate more activity, regardless of whether that activity is productive. Another drawback to measuring activity, according to RBM, is that it rewards conformity to a set procedure.
In contrast, say the proponents of Results-Based Measurement, RBM encourages creativity rather than "mere activity." RBM adherents believe that defining the result and allowing employees to seek the best way to get there accomplishes two things: 1) it encourages employees to find more efficient paths to the goal, and 2) it rewards innovation.
Another common performance evaluation system uses meeting deadlines as the standard by which employees are evaluated. This strategy, according to practitioners of RBM, can make the mistake of overvaluing timeliness of task completion and undervaluing quality of the result. Instead of asking "Was the task done by the deadline?" followers of Results-Based Measurement would rather rely on the employee to determine the optimum mix of quality, cost, and timeliness in order to produce the best overall outcome, the best result.
Let's look at another system, Competency-Based Measurement. CBM defines what skills, knowledge, and experience an individual needs in order to produce results. Backers of Results-Based Measurement identify two primary drawbacks to using CBM. First, it can be costly to develop fair and objective measures of what employees need to know. Even more to the point, RBM supporters argue that having a skill and using it successfully are two very different propositions. A computer analyst with a certificate of training hanging on the wall is not the same as a repaired computer. Identifying principles of website design is not the same as producing an effective website.
In summary, let's review the essential principles of Results-Based Measurement. According to supporters of RBM, the key question should be, "What result must the employee produce that will add value for the customer?" To answer this question, RBM says we must:
- review the organization's goals;
- identify the customers;
- define the results needed to meet the organizational goals and the customers' needs; and
- create measures for each result to determine if the goal has been achieved.
So, to a large extent, success according to Results-Based Measurement is defined from the customer's perspective. In a time when customer service seems to be increasingly devalued, smart companies are taking a taking a long, hard look at the RBM model of employee assessment.
Sample Questions:
