|
|
|
www.ASPonline.com |
ASP Forum
Is there a Downside to Proficiency Testing?
"We're considering adding a (voluntary?) proficiency test to our
new-user training classes, which we think will identify users who
will need a lot of support. What could go wrong? Anything?"
—Susan from Sumter
Susan,
Like anything, there are pro’s and con’s.
Pro’s — Metrics are cool.
Actually, more than cool, they allow a company to allocate resources
based on objective, and quantifiable ROI. If x is y, then 2y = 2x
type stuff. Bonus points for corporate goal transparency.
Con’s — Employees hate them.
Employees see metrics as a way to make them work harder for less pay
and dehumanize their workplace. It’s also seen as public humiliation
if a rep is not strong enough at a particular test. This is more
prevalent in areas which are time based environments like call
centres.
In our organization, any metric I track is always released to each
individual (never publically) to show them their performance vs the
group. If discussion is necessary it’s one on one (improving
management employee relations by personal interest in their success)
which fosters better communications overall. Of course I as a manager
get to see all the metrics and make judgments based on those metrics,
but employees enjoy private transparency into their contributions.
Real example, when I implemented proficiency training in house, I
gave a 6 test grace period where the stats of those tests were
discussed, but publically ignored and kept from higher authorities.
Why? This provided the team safety in knowing their ramp up period
(or learning curve as to what management wanted) would not be held
against them.
Test1 = Fighting, mistrust, and fear
Test2 = Some are on board with the intentions (early adopters),
corporate objectives are restated, followed up by resolving points
brought up in first test.
Test3 = running more smoothly, still voiced concerns, tweaks made
to testing at employee requests (now validated as opposed to initial
panic in test1)
Test4 = Acceptance starting to set in, reminder results still not
being collected / kept until after 6th test.
Test5 = Management takes tests / shows personal metrics to show
team corporate expectations.
Test6 = Team on board, now knowing structure and management
expectation.
Finally, make sure that if the company succeeds, the people succeed.
Nothing more aggravating than having a team reach a new level of
success and not get recognized at all. We’re not talking about
money, just the recognition they’ve contributed to the overall
goals of the organization is often enough to curb their initial
response to further metrics/profiency testing.
—Wallace Smith
[If you have any other advice on this question, please send an
email to membership director Jane Farber at jfarber@asponline.com,
and we'll post your feedback.]
|
|
|
