Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Definition:
“Mentoring is a long term relationship that meets a development need ,helps
develop full potential and benefits all partners ,mentor, mentee and the
organization”. - Suzanne Faure
“Mentoring is a protected relationship in which learning and experimentation can
occur, potential skills be developed, an in which results can be measured in terms
of competencies gained.’’ -Audrey Collin
Objectives of Mentoring :-
• Establishing a relationship of trust
• Modeling behavioural norms for the young person
• Listening to the person’s concerns and problems
• Helping him to search for alternative solutions for the problems
• Sharing own relevant experiences
• Responding to his emotional needs, without making him depend on the mentor
• Developing long-lasting, personal, and informal relationships.
Performance monitoring explicitly promotes the value that a manager and their
managee accept as joint responsibility for monitoring progress on the tasks and
goals agreed upon during the initial performance planning or expectation setting
meeting and subsequent review meetings. The managers use instruments like
written reports, review discussions and on-the-spot inspections to track:
• Help and support legitimately needed by the managee’s tasks, including those
agreed upon during planning and review meetings.
Process of Mentoring :-
The process of mentoring includes our important steps which are given as
follows;
a. Building the relationship: This is the first and foremost step in the process
of mentoring. The mentor- mentee relationship is the first vital aspect of
mentoring that needs to be established. Time and money must be invested
in building a good relationship. The mentor and mentee take their time in
getting to know each other. With this, the process of mentoring will be
easy.
b. Negotiating agreements: Negotiating is the action of transferring legal
ownership of a document. In this step, a set of agreements get established
to be implemented and followed during mentoring relationship. This
includes. • Defining the roles • Setting schedules for mentoring sessions •
Identifying limitations • Identifying mentoring style preferences.
c. Developing the mentee: This is the longest step of mentoring process.
During this stage, both the mentor and mentee will define mentoring goals,
create a list of mentoring activates to achieve their goals and keep constant
communication with each other.
d. Ending the relationship: It is the final step in the process of mentoring.
The mentoring process ends with a celebration of the accomplishments and
evaluation of outcomes. The mentoring relationship must end on a highly
positive note rather that closing abruptly (in a rude manner).
They are usually one of the most reliable methods of assessing candidate
employees for a role. Standard interviews, or any other method, taken alone, may
be as low as 15% accurate. However, when scores from a number of different
selection or assessment exercises are combined, their accuracy can rise to over
60%.
An assessment center is central location where the managers may come together
to participate in job related exercises evaluated by trained observers.
The principles idea is to evaluate managers over a period of time, by observing
and later evaluating their behavior.
When correctly designed, established and run with a professional and objective
approach, most assessment centres are generally accepted as a fair and unbiased
method of selection, providing equal chances for all candidates and selection
based on merit.
Also, a typical assessment centre provides much more valuable information about
fit, skills, competencies, behaviour and future potential than any other method of
recruitment.
For example: to select officers assessment centre method was used in World War
2
In simple words assessment centers are sued to know the suitability of candidate
for particular job with the help of various assessment methods like interviews
business games simulations etc
Measuring Performance :-
Knowing how the different areas of your business are performing can help you to assess
where your business is strong, where it is weaker and factors you can change for the
better. This should help you to manage your performance proactively and efficiently.
You should measure non-financial targets as well as considering financial ones. Some
others areas you could consider are:
• your customers - eg how many you have, how often they use you and how
many customers you have lost or gained
• customer service - eg waiting times for assistance, complaints, or reasons
customers have complained
• market share - eg whether your share of the market increased or decreased
against competitors
• your staff - eg satisfaction levels, work quality or attendance records
• observing the employee’s work behaviour and results, and comparing them
against the agreed standards
• evaluating job performance and the employee’s development potential
• acting on the results of the appraisal process, for example, through
promotion, reward and recognition, counselling, training, or in some cases,
termination.
The following characteristics will help ensure performance standards are fair and
useful. The standards should:
A poorly performing team failing to reach its potential is more likely to affect
overall business performance by simple virtue of the size of the task involved:
teams will take on bigger tasks than individuals. There may be many sound
reasons for this: poor project scope, alteration of the scope midway through the
project, poor management, lack of guidance, lack of budget etc but the impact of
team performance is likely to be of a far greater magnitude than that of an
underperforming individual.
Moreover, their performance (or lack of) could cause negativity within the
organisation and a team perceived to be underperforming can be a burden on other
teams who are meeting the demands of the business or organisation.
Individual performance targets will be (could be) different for everyone in the
team. Not every individual in the team will be working on the same task or have
the same set of skills and experience.
However, in the context of this when we are concerned with individuals within
teams it’s fair to say that team performance will be broad while individual
performance will be specific to each individual. Everyone must know their role
within the team and the impact their performance has.
• This system is designed to make transparency in its operation and all the parties
involved in performance management system respect each other’s needs,
• This seeks to build or change culture to a state in which the vision of the
organization includes its employees, its customers, and the society at large.
The values and norms of organization support employee’s decision making,
behaviour, and actions consistent with an ‘ethical’ vision.
• This system provide fair and free environment to its employees so that
employees can get the opportunity to scrutinize the basis upon which the
important decisions were made.
The Challenges
The decision makers—that is, the governing body—are not always experienced
with the process. The beneficiary—that is, the manager—sometimes is the one
who is more knowledgeable, skilled, and, shall we say, savvy. That imbalance
can create a conflict of interest. The result can be compensation packages or
benefits negotiated in good faith that later appear to be inappropriate, unfair, and
just too costly.
The Principles
The principles of the profession have long been the driver for personnel and
compensation matters. The standard for establishing executive compensation is
that it be fair, reasonable, and transparent. But what’s “fair” is subjective and
debatable.
The Process
To establish fair and reasonable compensation, the governing body should either
operate as a committee of the whole or designate an evaluation and compensation
subcommittee. This group should design and implement the methodology for
setting the compensation of the local government manager and any other
appointees of the governing body.
All decisions on compensation and benefits must be made by the entire governing
body in a public meeting.