Posted on

Patience & Perseverance (Kiên nhẫn & Kiên trì)

Just a random thought on the difference between Patience & Perseverance:

  1. Patience: trying to standstill when external forces push you – kind of reactive & internal holding, accept whatever external bring on
  2. Perseverance: keep moving forward instead of difficulty, of external forces

While patience help you to hold up your idea, perseverance helps you to advance that idea, to execute that idea, and to bring idea to life.

Both are necessary for you to move on & success in life, while patience is the corner stone and the firm platform – perseverance is the wheel, the structure that you’ll continue to build and go forward.

You can’t go further or build higher without strong foundation of Patience, and you can’t complete your goal without perseverance.

Go hand in hand…

Hai Linh

Posted on

Thoughts & Note on: Reinventing Performance Management (HBR)

In a series of HBR Favorite Articles 2015, I selected some articles that I feel most relevant to my current viewpoint & extract some of their core things here.

This is the first of my series: Reinventing Performance  Management

And here is some selected notes:

1- “…ratings reveal more about the rater than they do about the ratee.”

This gave us pause. We wanted to understand performance at the individual level, and we knew that the person in the best position to judge it was the immediate team leader. But how could we capture a team leader’s view of performance without running afoul of what the researchers termed “idiosyncratic rater effects”?

2- When the results were in and tallied, three items correlated best with high performance for a team: “My coworkers are committed to doing quality work,” “The mission of our company inspires me,” and “I have the chance to use my strengths every day.” Of these, the third was the most powerful across the organization.

3- But to recognize each person’s performance, we had to be able to see it clearly… Here we faced two issues—the idiosyncratic rater effect and the need to streamline our traditional process of evaluation, project rating, consensus meeting, and final rating. The solution to the former requires a subtle shift in our approach. Rather than asking more people for their opinion of a team member (in a 360-degree or an upward-feedback survey, for example), we found that we will need to ask only the immediate team leader—but, critically, to ask a different kind of question. People may rate other people’s skills inconsistently, but they are highly consistent when rating their own feelings and intentions. To see performance at the individual level, then, we will ask team leaders not about the skills of each team member but about their own future actions with respect to that person.

…In effect, we are asking our team leaders what they would do with each team member rather than what they think of that individual.

4- Our design calls for every team leader to check in with each team member once a week. For us, these check-ins are not in addition to the work of a team leader; they are the work of a team leader…If you want people to talk about how to do their best work in the near future, they need to talk often.

At the bottom line, I believe few things will help to solve Deloitte’s next challenge (to be transparence & 1-single rating number or not?) are:

1- Open communication, as much as possible: team’s members, even though are not in consensus, will still follow the organization’s decision if the decision making process is clear and transparence.

2- It should be in the heart of leader/manager that all rating they do, they’ll do in the best interest of the organization (up to their awareness) – training of process is needed to eliminate personal interest.

Hai Linh.