{"id":7390,"date":"2019-08-12T12:17:18","date_gmt":"2019-08-12T17:17:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2019-08-12T12:17:18","modified_gmt":"2019-08-12T17:17:18","slug":"the-significant-evolution-in-staff-assessments-a-good-fit-for-think-tanks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/the-significant-evolution-in-staff-assessments-a-good-fit-for-think-tanks\/","title":{"rendered":"The significant evolution in staff assessments: a good fit for think tanks?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[This post is the introduction of the resource \u201cThe significant evolution in staff assessments: a good fit for think tanks?<\/em>\u201d by Raymond Struyk.\u00a0Download the resource.<\/a>]<\/em><\/p>\n

There is an ongoing, comparatively quiet evolution in the business world, especially among tech firms, large consultancies and major international law firms, to refashion their traditional staff performance assessment systems and staff annual goal setting. Long simmering dissatisfaction began in 2011-2012 to fuel a reform movement that has gradually gained momentum with a jump in adopters of the new system from 2017. The new procedures, still often in trial stages, are now spreading to a broader array of businesses and to some think tanks.<\/p>\n

One key attribute of the new paradigm is frequent (at some firms, ideally, \u2018continuous\u2019) feedback on performance so staff can develop more quickly professionally and bring more tailored approaches to tasks at hand. More frequent supervisor-staff interactions are thought to lead to strong working relations and better mentoring. The accent is strongly on the future rather than reviewing last year\u2019s activities.<\/p>\n

Second, the leader industries now place very high value on agility\u2014the ability to shift processes and products in response to technological changes, important changes in the regulatory and fiscal environments, and market developments.+<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

A close friend of mine has worked in the marketing department of a major solar power company for the past 15 years. Technical disruption has been a constant factor in product development and production and, in turn, pricing. Additionally, countries, or even states within countries, have frequently shifted tax and other incentives to encourage consumers and firms to adopt solar power as their electricity source. In such an environment annual feedback and goals do not make much sense.<\/p>\n

Think tanks clearly operate in a different, much more stable, environment. Some are, however, confronting staff demands for more frequent feedback and promotions. Such demands are seemingly most often found among millennials (those born between January 1983 and December 1994) and a somewhat younger cohort. They focus on not succeeding quickly enough within their organizations or at least their progress not being recognized concretely, with other staff following their lead. Some survey data suggest this is a widespread issue.+<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Many think tanks have for 15 years and more employed sophisticated annual performance assessment systems that avoid the clear limitations of some of those that for-profit entities are replacing. Strong points often found in think tank protocols include:<\/p>\n