Leadership and Management Development:

Assessing development needs

Dr Catherine McCauley-Smith
Senior Lecturer in Leadership and Change
Objectives
By the end of the session you should be able to
understand, explain, analyse and evaluate:
Approaches to managing the performance of managers
through performance management systems
The importance and value of both giving and receiving
feedback when assessing a manager’s development needs
The difference between assessment and development centres
The various approaches available that enable the appraisal
of managers
The incorporation of LMD needs into personal development
plans
Critical
components of
performance
management
Terminology
 Performance Measure
 A specific quantitative representation of a capacity, process, or outcome
deemed relevant to the assessment of performance (a generic term that
includes standards, targets, indicators)
 Performance Standard
 Standards are one form of performance measure; they are generally
objective standards or guidelines that are used to assess performance.
 Performance Target
 The planned or expected level of performance
 Performance Indicator
 Indicators are another form of performance measure; they are the data or
information that is used to assess progress toward a performance standard
 HRM as a Learning system:
Core Organizational Competencies Support
Strategic Planning / Change Processes
< Strategy Formation > < Implementation >

HRM
Forces / Stakeholders System
Trends

External
Core Functions Environment
Opportunities /
Threats
Actions Results
Organizational
Planning Strategic Systems Design &
to Plan Strategies Development
Issues

Vision Strengths /
Mission Weaknesses
Internal
Values Environment

Capacity Competencies Barriers

Adapted from John M. Bryson (c) 1985. In Bryson, J.M. & Roering, W.D. (1988). Initiation of strategic planning by
governments. Public Administration Review, Nov.- Dec., 995 -1004.
Performance management systems
PM for the HR profession has been drawn into centre stage for
uncovering and delivering an organisation’s strategy (Strebler and
Bevan 2001)
Strategy and business plans require response towards future needs –
future needs and requirements cascaded throughout the organisation
Each section/department set priorities and targets for delivery
At every stage in the process managers will be required to determine
those performance requirements deemed appropriate and how they
will be measured
Measurement of performance indicates that managers are thinking
strategically (Pun and White, 2005)
Speed of change in environmental issues requires these to be
reviewed and revised on a continual basis
 Key elements of performance management
Common
understandin
g of
organisation
al goals

Individuals Key A shared

who are elements of expectation
fully
performanc of how
committed to
the aims of e individuals
managemen can
the
t contribute
organisation

Employees
with the skill
and ability to
meet
expectations
Adapted from Hobeche, 1998
Integration of HRM activities: CIPD (2006) survey in over 500 UK organisations of performance
Management activities and the belief that such activities were effective

The features of performance Organizations using this Organizations using this

management feature feature and believing it to
be effective
Individual annual appraisal 65 83
Twice yearly appraisal 27 38
Rolling appraisal 10 21
360 appraisal 14 20
Peer appraisal 8 12
Self-appraisal 30 53
Team appraisal 6 10
Subordinate feedback 11 17
Continuous assessment 14 20
Competence assessment 31 39
Objective setting and review 62 82
Performance- related pay 31 39
Competence –related pay 7 11
Contribution- related pay 4 6
Team pay 3 5
Coaching and mentoring 36 46
Career management and/ or 37 47
succession planning
Personal development plans 62 81
An integrated performance management cycle

Performance review
•Work based
•Development centre

Personal
End of year
developmen
appraisal
t plan

Performanc Performanc
e review e review
and and
feedback feedback

Half year
appraisal
Long history of research
Difficulties associated with;
Performance related pay, promotion, MBO, job
satisfaction and motivation
Tensions between control and development
Many methods seen as punitive
Recent trend is move away from purely job focus to
process incorporating wider social and economic
processes that impinge upon an organisation
National indicators – see for example
www.communities.gov.uk
Feedback as a key feature in PMS
In order to assess the development needs of managers
a key feature is how they will respond to feedback
The more criticism the higher the level of defensiveness
The manager being appraised often has a higher
perception of themselves than that of the appraiser
feedback
Main aims
Self awareness
Reflection
Performance improvement
Need for LMD
Types
Informal: interactions, work, reflections
Formal: performance reviews and appraisals, 180/360
degree feedback, assessment or development centres
Response to feedback
Affected by own self-evaluation
Psychological traits e.g. Judge et al’s (1997) factors
such as self esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control and
neurotisism ......built up through life experience and
form a sense of value
Provide important input
Challenge to self evaluation – resisted
Therefore need to increase self awareness
Being proactive;
value of feedback valued by many managers: research by
Vandewalle and Cummings (1997) – ‘feedback seekers’

Learning goal orientation is positively Performance goal orientation has a negative

related to feedback seeking behaviour effect on feedback seeking behaviour

Learning goal Performance goal

orientation orientation
The willingness of The seeking by
managers to develop managers to show and
new skills and master prove that their
new situations competences are
adequate by avoiding
negative judgements in
favour of positive ones
Assessment Centres and Development
Centres
ACs and DCs both draw on the belief in the use of
psychometric methods and exercises on which
judgements are made about particular performance
requirements
Where ACs and DCs are combined with competence
frameworks and other performance models they form a
link mechanism to support strategic HR and change
Appraisal
In theory the ‘holy grail’ of LMD but in practice
profoundly unsatisfactory....nevertheless a significant
activity
For some and organisation without appraisal is acting
irrationally and is ineffective (Barlow, 1989)
Appraisal - purpose
Possibilities include:
Providing information for succession, talent and resource
planning
Providing a basis for improved communication between
managers and staff
Providing clarity of roles and purposes
Identifying and recording performance weakness
Analysis of performance and identification of required
standards and improvements
Identifying potential
Providing a basis for training and career counselling
Providing a basis for decision-making or salary
Appraisal = panacea?
A diverse range of objectives (previous slide) can
represent a ‘panacea’
No single appraisal will meet all the objectives
Some contradict each other – salary – can cause
conflict and undermine communication
Role ambiguity – judge and helper
Feedback resulting in defensive behaviour negates
performance improvement
Appraisal and LMD needs
Gap between reality and rhetoric
Tick box, waste of time or even ignored
LMD should be separated out from pay, reward and
promotion
Traits and personal attributes need to be considered
with caution – loyalty means different things to
different people for example
Appraisal – types of leadership and
management skills
Unlike traits types of skills eg planning, time
management, team development directly relate to LMD
Behaviour approach to leadership and management
competencies (LMCs) is concerned with behaviour
patterns which stem from characteristics and abilities
that lead to effect performance – some claim
integrating link between PMS and organisation strategy
Value of LMCs is two distinctive forms of rating scales
can be developed: BARS and BOS
Appraisal: job related - BARS and BOS
non- job specific- contextualised
Job related
BARS – behaviour-anchored ratings scales which are
descriptions of effective and ineffective performance
BOS – behavioural observation scales which are
observable, job related behaviours that those doing the
rating can assess in terms of frequency in which they occur
Non job specific
Interest in contextual performance rating which is non-job
specific – co-operation, enthusiasm, personality and
motivation
 Opens door to multi source feedback (MSF)
Mutli-Source Feedback (MSF)
Has become increasingly popular (Kettley 1997) as a
result of the way it;
Empowers employees and promotes teamwork by
allowing them to appraise their managers
Increases the reliability of appraisal feedback and
gives more balance to feedback in flatter organisations
with fewer spans of control
Reinforces good management behaviour
MSF – 6 Types
All designed to increase self awareness:
Staff - upward
Fellow managers - peers
Person in charge – top-down
Manager and/or staff/peers – 180 degree
Manager/staff/peers – 360 degree
Manager/staff/peers/customers, suppliers/other
interdependent relationships – 540 degree
MSF – covers all angles
Manager

Customers
Others

Peers
Peers

Customers Subordinates
Self appraisal
The best person to make an assessment and judgement
about performance and therefore needs is that person
him/herself. Campbell and Lee (1988) suggest four steps:
1. The manager has beliefs and ideas about what the work
requires and what needs to be done to meet goals
2. The manager attempts to meet work requirements and
goals informed by these beliefs and ideas
3. The manager judges whether particular behaviours best
achieve the desired results
4. The manager uses judgement to reinforce or change these
beliefs and ideas about the work requirements and what
needs to be done
Self appraisal – health warning
Can be subject to discrepancy:
Informational – disagreements about what work and
standards
Cognitive – differing perceptions
Affective – triggering of defence mechanisms –
distorting the interpretation of appraisal data
Also research findings tell us that most individual over
rate themselves – a distorted view
Most play to strengths rather than addressing
weaknesses
 Example of 360 feedback
MLQ PLOT (SPIDERGRAM)

Idealised Influence (Attributed)

16
Satisfaction 15
14 Idealised Influence (Behaviour) Group 1
13
12
11 Group 2
10
9
Effectiveness 8 Inspirational Motivation
7 Group 3
6
5
4
3 Group 4
2
1
Extra Effort 0 Intellectual Stimulation Group 5

Group 6
Laissez-faire Leadership Individualized Consideration Group 7

Management-by-Exception Group 8
Contingent Reward
(Passive)
Group 9
Management-by-Exception (Active)
Group
10
Group
11
Personal Development Plan (PDP)
PDP an outcome of assessment/appraisal and
establishes an action plan
Crucial that this involves managers in a genuine
conversation about career development and
progression within the organisation
Benefits of PDPs (Mumford 2001)
Benefits for the individual
manager
Increased ability to develop
performance
Reduced stress about tackled gaps in
performance
Increased chance of holding on to a
desired current job
Increased potential of job
enlargement
Clearer process for establishing
personal aspirations
Clear process for establishing
commitment by higher manager for
development of his/her managers
Benefits for the manager’s
manager
Reduced problems of
performance
Increased use of additional
opportunities for effective
work within the unit
Reduced belief that a
manager’s manager does not
support development
More individuals capable of
dealing with new or difficult
tasks or more complex jobs
Contradictions and tensions
Different interpretations with unpredictable consequences
Over-rating and differing perspectives
Ritualistic and tick box exercise
Rhetoric rather than reality – lip service
Foucault – Bentham’s penoptican
Various devices used to appraise and assess managers – BARS,
BOS, standards, MSF quationnaires – serve to exert power over
them in setting an ideal or norm to be achieved – managers learn
to accept such measurements
Even where the attention is seemingly on learning and
development managers subject to disciplinary power set by
others
 Management and Surveillance
Jeremy Bentham’s
Panopticon
Key principles:
Inspection by an
all-seeing but unseen being

Designed to produce
employees predisposed
to be socialised into
submitting their will to
the task at hand

 In the peripheric ring, one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without
ever being seen.“

 Modern Panopticon is no longer built with bricks and mortar.....use of appraisal devices
Summary
Assessing LMD needs requires judgements to be made concerning a
manager’s performance, and there are fundamental difficulties
concerning who makes the judgements, how they do it, and whether the
judgements are regarded as valid by managers
Performance Management Systems (PMS) offer the opportunity to align
aspects related to an organisation’s objectives within a manager’s
performance requirements and measurements
An aim of feedback to managers is to increase their self awareness of
their strengths and weaknesses and to identify issues for performance
improvement and requirements for LMD
Development centres (DCs) can play a role in helping managers assess
LMD needs – however, their similarity to assessment centres (Acs) often
provokes doubts that their purpose is not always developmental
Summary cont….
Appraisal lies at the heart of a formal approach to assessing
LMD needs, although their remains difficulties in separating
the purpose of appraisal between control, development and
other unintended outcomes
Multi-source feedback (MSF) allows managers to receive
feedback about their performance from different perspectives
The assessment process should result in an action plan or a
personal development plan, but implementation requires
support in the workplace and a positive learning environment
Critical views of assessment and appraisal point to its
ritualistic nature and its hidden features whereby power can
be exercised over others
Pre-study for week 8
Read the following article prior to week 8 – activities will include reference to this
article next week so please ensure that YOU read it ….

Performance Management at the Wheel: Driving Employee Engagement in

Organizations
Edward Mone • Christina Eisinger • Kathryn Guggenheim • Bennett Price •
Carolyn Stine
J Bus Psychol (2011) 26:205–212 : DOI 10.1007/s10869-011-9222-9

The article is available to download in week 7 additional

reading folder on BBU
Additional Reading
Beck, V. (2014). Employers’ views of learning and
training for an aging workforce. Management
Learning, Vol. 45(2):200-215
Burchell, J., Kennedy, S., Murray, A. (2015).
Responsible management education in UK business
Schools: Critically examining the role of the United
Nations Principles for responsible management
education as a driver for change. Management
Learning, Vol. 46(4): 479-497