|
|
| Sample
Outputs of WorkRelationships' Interpersonal Risk Management System
for Company X |
Industry:
Technology
Employees: 800
Situation: A CFO of a mid-sized, high growth tech company initially
contacted WorkRelationships' because of the results of an in-house
employee satisfaction survey and 360-degree management evaluation.
In particular, he was concerned about his technical managers' apparent
lack of interpersonal skills; while his company had an extensive management
training program, it tended to focus on technical skills rather than
interpersonal abilities. The results of their in-house survey indicated
that, in general, employees perceived their technical managers to
have trouble delegating, to avoid dealing with poor performers, and
to have marginal communication skills. He was also concerned about
the potential liability the reluctance to address performance/conduct
problems could have on the organization, particularly the implications
for wrongful discharge claims. What he said he needed was a measurable
way to evaluate and increase his technical managers' management skills
and reduce wrongful termination liability. |
The Interpersonal Risk Profile: At the CFO's request, the VP-HR
completed the Interpersonal Risk Audit. Consistent with the in-house
survey, the Interpersonal Risk Profile identified performance management
as the primary risk area for this company. In particular, the Interpersonal
Risk Profile indicated that managers were not being taught the performance
management skills to effectively communicate performance expectations,
give appropriate performance evaluations, and address performance
problems. It also suggested that employee retention was being adversely
impacted by new technical managers' lack of interpersonal awareness
and tendency to focus on technical rather than managerial tasks. |
|
Click to see sample results:
Click
to see sample performance management recommendations
|
The Consultation: During the follow-up phone conversation with
the VP-Human Resources, a primary concern was how to translate the
performance management risk area into tangible management training
needs. As a result, the WorkRelationships' consultant recommended
that company's managers complete the Interpersonal Risk Assessment
for Managers to determine which specific performance management skills
were lacking and to determine training priorities. |
|
Technical managers' training needs: Results of the Interpersonal
Risk Assessment for Managers revealed significant skill deficits
in areas including motivating employees, clearly communicating performance
expectations, managing teams, conducting the performance appraisal
process, and counseling poor performers. A positive outcome of the
management training needs assessment results was that virtually
all of the technical managers already viewed these skills as critically
important and were acutely aware of the need to become more effective
leaders, particularly after receiving their individual results of
the IRA-M.
|
|
Click
to see sample results.
|
Results: At the company's request, WorkRelationships designed
a customized 3-day interpersonal management development program to
supplement their technical skills development program. This 3-day
program was followed up with 3 months of online coaching and a 1 day
follow-up. Results at 3 and 6 months revealed a significant increase
in employee satisfaction and 360-degree evaluation ratings. In addition,
because of the increase in the technical managers' coaching skills,
1/2 of the previously poor performers had progressed to a satisfactory
level of performance. |
ROI: Company Y, with their performance management problems,
had a gap between the productivity of high producers and poor producers.
They estimated that their high producers were earning revenues of
$200,000 while their poor producers were only earning $40,000 a year.
When entering these numbers in the calculator it was determined that
bad hires were costing the company $13,400,000 and that by implementing
WorkRelationships recommendations they could save $852,727 per year. |
|
Click
to see sample productivity calculations
|
|
