(This is not the web-based lay-out and a translation

(1)

Appendices

(2)

Appendix 1 questionnaire English version

(This is not the web-based lay-out and a translation

is made in Dutch and Norwegian)

(3)

Dear respondent,

As part of our commitment to simplify the Human Resource processes, we are keen to receive feedback on how the Performance Management Framework has been used in your part of the business. Your honest feedback and suggested improvements are needed to make this a tool we all experience as useful for the business and ourselves.

By taking 10-15 minutes to complete this questionnaire, you have the opportunity to help us to improve the Framework for next year’s performance cycle.

Click here to go the performance management website to see the Framework.

Karin Stok, a postgraduate at the Faculty of Management and Organization, University of Groningen, the Netherlands is helping us to conduct the questionnaire, and the results will be part of her research work at the University. If you have any questions about the questionnaire or filling in, do not hesitate to contact Karin on +31592364109 or at [email protected]

All of the information provided by you in this questionnaire will remain confidential and your identity will remain completely anonymous. The information will be used only in collective form, which implies that individual responses will not be in any way identifiable.

Completing the questionnaire can be done quickly in 3 easy steps:

1. Simply open the link at the bottom of this e-mail.

2. Answer each of the short questions; and

3. When you have completed the questionnaire push the submit button

To minimize burden for the EPE organization as a whole, this questionnaire has been sent to a focused group of staff comprising Commercial and some 400 staff in Production. I would therefore kindly request you to participate in this research and complete the questionnaire.

I also want to thank you for supporting Karin in her graduation research.

Kind regards, Tor Arnesen,

HR Strategy & Policy Manager Go to the questionnaire: LINK!!!!!!

Employee Questionnaire

Performance Management Framework EPE

(4)

The questionnaire contains a series of statements concerning various aspects of the Performance Management Framework. Please note that there are no right or wrong answers to any of these statements. Read the instructions for each section carefully, and answer each question by selecting the answer that best expresses your opinion.

For each question please indicate your answer by ticking the appropriate response box.

1. Gender Female

Male

2. Age < 30 year

31-40 year 41-50 year > 50 year 3. In which country do you work? Netherlands

United Kingdom Norway

4. What’s your nationality? Dutch Norwegian Scottish British

Other, namely 5. How long have you worked for this company? < 5 year

6-10 year 11-15 year 16-20 year > 20 year

6. Which directorate do you currently work for? Production (go to question 7) Commercial (go to question 8) Other, (go to question 8) 7. Which department do you currently work in? UK/Norway X-border

ONEgas Land Mature Central Groningen

E&M

Production Services Logistics

8. Which salary group do you have? Letter classified 1-6

7-15

9. Are you a supervisor? Yes

No

Section 1: General information

(5)

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Don’t Agree Disagree Know 10. In my department, the focus lays on realizing individual

objectives

11. Competition between employees is not harmful 12. I am dependent on my supervisor to fulfill my tasks 13. I think it is important that my job leaves me enough time for personal or family life

14. Variety and adventure in my work is unimportant to me 15. I feel uneasy with uncertain or unknown situations 16. In my department, the focus lays on consensus and equality

17. In my department, conflicts are solved through negotiation and compromising

In this section questions will be asked about the Performance Management Framework EPE adopted in January 2004:

This questionnaire deals primarily with performance agreements and the management of performance.

Section 2: About Performance Management

(6)

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Don’t Agree Disagree Know 18. The EPE Performance Management Framework

is an improvement on what we had before 19. Having a performance agreement is not necessary for me

20. My performance agreement gives me an opportunity to show what I can really do

21. It is clear why I have to use a performance agreement

22. The performance focus in the Performance

Management Framework is too controlling 23. I understand the details of my performance agreement 24. It is difficult to figure out how the Framework works

25. I enjoy working towards the goals set in my

Performance Agreement

26. My performance agreement serves an important purpose 27. My performance agreement clarifies what my supervisor expects of me

28. Things would be better without the Framework

29. My performance agreement helps me to perform more

effectively

30. I understand why the Framework is being used

31. My performance agreement created more trust between my supervisor and me

Below are some statements about work performance.

To what extent do you agree these apply to you?

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Don’t

Agree Disagree Know 32. I am motivated to work hard in this company

33. I am confident in my ability to do my job well

34. I am ambitious and want to succeed in my job 35. I am successful in doing my job

(7)

This section examines management of your daily work. Here it is important to establish your experience of supervision and the extent to which you felt in control or involved in the process of setting up your performance agreement. The information will remain confidential. With regard to these issues, please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Don’t Agree Disagree Know My supervisor…

36. Let me know when I am not meeting the targets set in my performance agreement

37. And I have had a discussion that clarified the work related tasks and duties that are expected of me

38. And I have had a discussion that clarified the

behaviors I am expected to demonstrate

39. Gives me recognition when I am doing a good job 40. Has treated me with respect

41. Is available for me when I’m having a work related problem

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Don’t Agree Disagree Know 42. My supervisor and I discuss my performance frequently

43. These discussions are effective in guiding my performance 44. I feel I have had influence over the outcomes of the

Framework

45. I have had adequate involvement in setting my performance agreement

46. The process of setting my performance agreement has been based on accurate information

47. Which factor(s) will motivate you to shape and improve your performance?

Section 3: About your supervisor

- - - - - -

(8)

Finally, we are interested in your opinion about the way communication about Performance Management has taken place.

48. To what extent have you used the following as sources to get information re the Performance Management Framework?

Very Frequent Moderate Very Not at

often little all

Performance Management website on EPE intranet

Tools on Performance Management website (guidelines)

LiveLink documents & guidelines

Face-to-face with your supervisor

Face-to-face in team meetings

HR in the Business Advisors

The Link (online EPE Magazine) Colleagues

Other, namely 49. How satisfied were you with these sources of information?

Very Satisfied Not so Not at all Don’t

satisfied satisfied satisfied know

Performance Management website on EPE intranet

Tools on Performance Management website (guidelines) LiveLink documents & guidelines

Face-to-face with your supervisor Face-to-face in team meetings HR in the Business Advisors The Link

Colleagues

Remarks

50. How do you prefer to get information about performance management in the future? (Please indicate the 3 most preferable for you)

Performance Management website on EPE intranet Tools on Performance Management website (guidelines)

LiveLink documents & guidelines Face-to-face with your supervisor Face-to-face in team meetings HR in the Business Advisors The Link

Colleagues

Other, namely

Section 4: About communication

(9)

51. Do you have any suggestions or remarks?

This is the end of the questionnaire

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

Please, press the submit button to send it back

(10)

Appendix 2 Factor analyses

Factor Analysis Cultural Items

Communalities

1,000 ,474

1,000 ,340

1,000 ,571

1,000 ,617

1,000 ,549

1,000 ,130

1,000 ,575

1,000 ,602

focus on individual objectives

competition not harmful dependent on supervisor time for personal life important

uneasy uncertain sit variety and andventure important

focus not on consensus

& equality

conflicts not solved through negotiation

Initial Extraction

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Total Variance Explained

1,417 17,712 17,712 1,417 17,712 17,712 1,342 16,769 16,769

1,253 15,664 33,376 1,253 15,664 33,376 1,276 15,953 32,722

1,187 14,841 48,217 1,187 14,841 48,217 1,240 15,495 48,217

,993 12,412 60,629

,909 11,365 71,995

,836 10,444 82,439

,816 10,202 92,640

,589 7,360 100,000

Component 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Total % of VarianceCumulative % Total % of VarianceCumulative % Total % of VarianceCumulative % Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

(11)

Component Matrix^a

,497 -1,11E-02 -,477

,383 -,374 -,231

,319 ,509 -,458

1,418E-02 ,475 ,625

,129 ,728 -3,78E-02 ,242 ,248 -9,94E-02

,673 -,127 ,326

,627 -,142 ,434

focus on individual objectives

uneasy uncertain sit variety and andventure important

& equality

1 2 3

Component

3 components extracted.

a.

Component Transformation Matrix

,814 ,461 ,354

-,182 ,781 -,598

,552 -,422 -,719

Component 1

2 3

1 2 3

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotated Component Matrix^a

,143 ,421 ,526

,253 -1,78E-02 ,525

-8,62E-02 ,738 ,138

,270 ,114 -,729

-4,85E-02 ,644 -,362

9,715E-02 ,347 9,445E-03

,751 7,318E-02 7,965E-02

,776 -4,51E-03 -5,64E-03 focus on individual

objectives

uneasy uncertain sit variety and adventure important

& equality

1 2 3

Component

Rotation converged in 4 iterations.

a.

(12)

Factor Analysis Commitment + Understanding

Communalities

1,000 ,452

1,000 ,621

1,000 ,619

1,000 ,507

1,000 ,603

1,000 ,607

1,000 ,584

1,000 ,549

1,000 ,654

1,000 ,326

1,000 ,614

1,000 ,577

1,000 ,638

1,000 ,569

PM is improvement PA is opportunity use PA is clear

understanding details PA enjoy working to goals PA PA serves important purpose

PA clarifies expectations PA helps perform more effective

understand why Framework used PA creats more trust PA is necessary for me pm focus not too controlling

not difficult to figure Framework out

things would not be better without the framework

Initial Extraction

6,582 47,015 47,015 6,582 47,015 47,015 4,622 33,014 33,014

1,337 9,553 56,569 1,337 9,553 56,569 3,298 23,554 56,569

,864 6,172 62,741

,809 5,776 68,516

,668 4,769 73,285

,570 4,072 77,357

,530 3,784 81,141

,519 3,711 84,851

,419 2,996 87,847

,400 2,856 90,703

,361 2,581 93,285

,338 2,412 95,697

,315 2,253 97,950

,287 2,050 100,000

Component 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Total % of VarianceCumulative % Total % of VarianceCumulative % Total % of VarianceCumulative % Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared Loadings

(13)

,670 6,057E-02

,688 -,383

,783 -6,88E-02

,675 ,228

,732 -,260

,746 -,224

,739 -,191

,654 -,348

,577 ,566

,568 -5,67E-02

,750 -,228

,658 ,380

,594 ,534

,721 ,222

1 2

Component

a.

(14)

,493 ,457

,779 ,118

,662 ,424

,394 ,593

,738 ,241

,727 ,279

,702 ,301

,730 ,124

,111 ,801

,484 ,302

,733 ,278

,288 ,702

,144 ,786

,435 ,616

1 2

Component

a.

,791 ,611

-,611 ,791

Component 1

2

1 2

(15)

Factor Analysis Self-efficacy

Communalities

1,000 ,446

1,000 ,593

1,000 ,434

1,000 ,548

motivated to work hard confident in ability ambitous in job successfull in job

Initial Extraction

2,021 50,515 50,515 2,021 50,515 50,515

,932 23,309 73,823

,597 14,927 88,750

,450 11,250 100,000

Component 1

2 3 4

Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

,668 ,770 ,659 ,740 motivated to work hard

confident in ability ambitous in job successfull in job

1 Compone

nt

a.

Only one component was extracted.

The solution cannot be rotated.

a.

(16)

Factor Analysis Leadership style

Communalities

1,000 ,564

1,000 ,634

1,000 ,704

1,000 ,715

1,000 ,702

1,000 ,670

1,000 ,611

1,000 ,547

1,000 ,396

1,000 ,765

1,000 ,757

sv let's know not meeting PA

sv discussion tasks &

duties

sv discussion behavior sv gives recognition sv treats with respect sv is available sv discusses performance freq.

discussions are effective influence outcomes Framework

involvement in setting PA PA based on accurate info

Initial Extraction

4,433 40,297 40,297 4,433 40,297 40,297 2,684 24,401 24,401

1,495 13,591 53,888 1,495 13,591 53,888 2,314 21,035 45,436

1,138 10,342 64,229 1,138 10,342 64,229 2,067 18,794 64,229

,803 7,296 71,526

,731 6,645 78,171

,585 5,317 83,488

,507 4,611 88,099

,406 3,689 91,788

,364 3,310 95,098

,320 2,913 98,011

,219 1,989 100,000

Component 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(17)

,652 -,109 -,355

,692 7,581E-02 -,386

,677 ,156 -,470

,577 ,609 ,101

,559 ,460 ,422

,559 ,518 ,298

,745 -8,89E-02 -,219 ,691 -,254 -7,53E-02

,475 -,241 ,335

,675 -,444 ,334

,629 -,523 ,296

sv let's know not meeting PA

duties

1 2 3

Component

a.

,706 ,248 6,480E-02

,755 ,135 ,212

,806 3,132E-02 ,230 ,322 -1,54E-02 ,782

7,549E-02 ,240 ,800

,166 ,137 ,789

,670 ,359 ,184

,528 ,509 9,464E-02

8,157E-02 ,596 ,184

,219 ,838 ,121

,216 ,843 2,284E-02 sv let's know not meeting

PA

duties

1 2 3

Component

a.

(18)

,685 ,559 ,467

,000 -,641 ,767

-,728 ,526 ,439

Component 1

2 3

1 2 3

Factor Analysis Satisfaction communication channels Communalities

1,000 ,762

1,000 ,837

1,000 ,498

1,000 ,723

1,000 ,761

1,000 ,387

1,000 ,532

1,000 ,654

satisfaction PM website satisfaction tools PM website

satisfaction LiveLink satisfaction F2F supervisor

satisfaction F2F team meeting

satisfaction HR in the business

satisfaction the link satisfaction colleagues

Initial Extraction

3,681 46,011 46,011 3,681 46,011 46,011 2,743 34,284 34,284

1,472 18,398 64,409 1,472 18,398 64,409 2,410 30,125 64,409

,769 9,612 74,021

,600 7,498 81,520

,527 6,587 88,106

,457 5,715 93,821

,331 4,133 97,954

,164 2,046 100,000

Component 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(19)

,711 -,506

,741 -,537

,696 -,114

,621 ,581

,656 ,575

,621 2,561E-02

,667 -,294

,704 ,398

1 2

Component

a.

,869 7,895E-02 ,869 7,494E-02

,602 ,367

9,216E-02 ,845

,123 ,864

,455 ,424

,698 ,211

,275 ,760

1 2

Component

a.

,758 ,652

-,652 ,758

Component 1

2

1 2

(20)

Factor Analysis used communication Communalities

1,000 ,816

1,000 ,826

1,000 ,643

1,000 ,826

1,000 ,754

1,000 ,472

1,000 ,432

1,000 ,646

used PM website to get info

used tools on PM website used Livelink to get info used F2F supervisor used F2F team meeting used HR in the business used the link

used colleagues

Initial Extraction

3,946 49,324 49,324 3,946 49,324 49,324 2,737 34,209 34,209

1,470 18,370 67,694 1,470 18,370 67,694 2,679 33,485 67,694

,764 9,549 77,243

,597 7,458 84,701

,458 5,724 90,425

,387 4,840 95,265

,236 2,947 98,212

,143 1,788 100,000

Component 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

,641 ,637

,728 ,545

,801 3,726E-02

,695 -,586

,700 -,514

,676 ,122

,638 ,158

,726 -,345

used colleagues

1 2

Component

a.

(21)

,903 -7,53E-03

,901 ,119

,599 ,533

8,744E-02 ,905

,141 ,857

,569 ,386

,566 ,333

,279 ,754

used colleagues

1 2

Component

a.

,715 ,699

,699 -,715

Component 1

2

1 2

(22)

Appendix 3 Reliability of the scale

Scale Cronbach’s alpha (reliability of the

scale)

Understanding/Knowledge 0.81

22. The Performance focus in the PM Framework is too controlling

23. I understand the details of my PA

24. It is difficult to figure out how the framework works 28.Tthings would be better without the Framework 30. I understand why the Framework is being used

Commitment 0.89

18. The EPE PM Framework is an improvement on what we had before

19. Having a PA is not necessary for me

20. My PA gives me an opportunity to show what I can really do

21. It is clear why I have to use a PA

25. I enjoy working towards the goals set in my PA 26. My PA serves an important purpose

27. My PA clarifies what my supervisor expects of me 29. My PA helps me to perform more effectively 31. My PA created more trust between my supervisor and me

Result-driven coaching (leadership style) 0.81

36. My supervisor let me know when I am not meeting the targets set in my PA

37. My supervisor and I have had a discussion that clarified the work related tasks and duties that are expected of me

38. My supervisor and I have had a discussion that clarified the behaviors I am expected to demonstrate 42. My supervisor and I discuss my performance frequently

43. These discussions are effective in guiding my performance

People focus of leaders (leadership style) 0.76

39. My supervisor gives me recognition when I am doing a good job

40. My supervisor has treated me with respect

41. My supervisor is available for me when I am having a work related problem

(Feelings of) involvement 0.72

44. I feel I have had influence over the outcomes of the Framework

45. I have had adequate involvement in setting my PA 46. The process of setting my PA has been based on

(23)

Self-efficacy/self-rate 0.66

32. I am motivated to work hard in this company 33. I am confident in my ability to do my job well 34. I am ambitious and want to succeed in my job 35. I am successful in doing my job

Used Communication (rich channels) 0.84

48d. Face-to-face with supervisor 48e. Face-to-face in team meetings 48h. Colleagues

Used communication (poor channels) 0.82

48a. PM website on EPE intranet 48b. Tools on PM website

48c. Livelink documents and guidelines 48f. HR in the business advisors 48g. The Link

Satisfaction communication (rich channels) 0.81

49d. Face-to-face with supervisor 49e. Face-to-face in team meetings 49h. Colleagues

Satisfaction communication (poor channels) 0.81

49a. PM website on EPE intranet 49b. Tools on PM website

49c. Livelink documents and guidelines 49f. HR in the business advisors 49g. The Link

Culture: Individualism 0.17

10. In my department, the focus lays on realizing individual objectives

11. Competition between employees is not harmful

Culture: Masculinity 0.44

16. In my department, the focus lays on consensus and equality

17. In my department, conflicts are solved through negotiation and compromising

(24)

Appendix 4 Scores differentiated per directorate

Scales Total

(n=214)

Production (n=169) Commercial (n=34) Commitment

Mean SD

2,45 0,58

2,46 0,57

2,40 0,53 Understanding

Mean SD

2,73 0,53

2,73 0,54

2,73 0,46 Self-efficacy

Mean SD

3,32 0,45

3,34 0,44

3,19 0,49 People focus leaders

Mean

SD 2,99

0,60 2,97

0,62 2,99

0,56 Result-driven coaching

Mean

SD 2,67

0,54 2,66

0,54 2,63

0,52 Involvement

Mean SD

2,70 0,67

2,66 0,71

2,85 0,47 Masculinity

Mean

SD 2,40

0,56 2,40

0,55 2,48

0,63 Individualism

Mean

SD 2,29

0,59 2,29

0,60 2,40

0,45 (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree)

Scales Total

(n=214) Production (n=169) Commercial (n=34) Used communication (rich)*

Mean

SD 2,77

1,01 2,74

1,01 2,59

0,98 Used communication

(poor)*

Mean SD

1,78 0,66

1,81 0,67

1,50 0,44 Satisfaction communication

(rich)**

Mean SD

2,86 0,57

2,84 0,59

2,81 0,44 Satisfaction communication

(poor)**

Mean

SD 2,38

0,68 2,41

0,67 2,30

0,71

* (1 = not at all; 2 = very little; 3 = moderate; 4= frequent; 5 = very often)

** (1 = not at all satisfied; 2 = not so satisfied; 3 = satisfied; 4 = very satisfied)

(25)

Appendix 5 Percentages scales communication

Which channels used to get information re PM/PA?

Very often (%)

Frequent (%)

Moderate (%)

Very little (%)

Not at all (%)

PM website 0,5 2,3 16,4 42,7 38,0

Tools on website 0 2,8 19,8 36,8 40,6

LiveLink 3,8 8,0 17,5 30,2 40,6

Supervisor 8,9 23,0 35,2 21,6 11,3

Team meetings 6,1 17,8 28,2 25,4 22,5

HR in the Business 0,5 3,8 10,4 26,4 59,0

The Link (E-

magazine) 0,5 0,5 9,0 34,1 55,9

Colleagues 6,2 22,7 31,3 20,9 19,0

Satisfaction with communication channels

Very Satisfied (%)

Satisfied (%)

Not so satisfied (%)

Not at all satisfied (%)

Don’t know (%)

PM website 0,5 27,6 13,8 4,3 53,8*

Tools on website 0 25,7 11,4 4,8 58,1*

LiveLink 2,4 22,1 13,5 6,7 55,3*

Supervisor 10,9 54,5 13,7 4,3 16,6*

Team meetings 6,7 45,7 14,8 2,4 30,5*

HR in the Business 2,4 12,9 15,3 14,4 55,0*

The Link (E-

magazine) 0,5 11,5 12,0 6,7 69,4*

Colleagues 10,6 47,8 11,1 1,9 28,5*

* Likely, ‘Don’t know’ is chosen when employees didn’t use the channel at all or make very little use of it.

Logically, they then cannot form an opinion about their satisfaction with these channels.

(26)

How do you prefer to get information re PM in the future (more answers possible)?

Communication Channels Percentage (%)

PM website 32,2

Tools on website 18,7

LiveLink 10,3

Supervisor 81,8

Team meetings 57,0

HR in the Business 30,4

The Link (E-magazine) 5,1

Colleagues 30,8

(27)

Appendix 6 Overview answers open questions

Answers on question 47: which factors will motivate you to shape and improve your performance?

• Compliments, recognition, and so.

Preferably oral, face-to-face, spontaneous and soon after the performance has taken place. By the way, to give someone a good licking when something went wrong is ok, but this must be face-to-face and in a way that not everyone gets to know about it.

• Personal recognition and appreciation by the Group.

• The feeling of being ‘added value’ for something, when this is not the case, I am not motivated and less interested in the duties and tasks.

• To accept each other as we are, it doesn’t were you come from or what you have done in the past.

Respect for each other and know what someone else don’t know.

• Decision-making of supervisors between different disciplines. When these supervisors don’t have a common, shared goal, it will bring a lot of frustration and useless discussions for the people working between the disciplines. The consequence of this may be that the productivity will be lower.

• A pleasant work environment

Supervisors who don not need a performance sheet to fulfil their jobs, but supervisors who know where they are talking about.

The absence of people who are too ambitious.

Leaders who are concerned and involved

• Openness and clarity

Recognition for what you have done

• Clear vision of the future (job related) New challenges

• Get the opportunity to decide by myself how my targets can be achieved.

• Result-driven duties and work Diversity during work

• Rest (peace) in the organization is necessary. Not good to jump from one reorganization in the other without optimizing things first.

• Give me time and space to do my job good, so that I can concentrate on the core business (this is where the Group earns her money with) and don’t spend too much time at matters of secondary importance.

• Get things done and recognition

• Recognition

• Intrinsic motivation

• The possibility to adjust the performance agreement continuous.

• Interest in the individual, not the paper necessity

• Added Value Pleasure in my job Feasibility

• The satisfaction of fulfilling/achieving h things and see the results of it When the group is doing good, I am doing good as well

• A belief in a proper execution of the CBP process.

• Own motivation to deliver as promised and at high quality.

Recognition of my contribution by my colleagues Promotions

• Enterprise first will motivate. Pulling the load together in the same direction seems essential for this project to work. We experience significant internal competition, spurred by IPF and value grabbing for departments or individuals. It seems destructive for the organization. A problem made worse by low aggregate self-esteem for individuals in an organization under pressure to deliver on what many feel to be unachievable goals.

I however, have all the motivation I need from interesting work tasks, good colleagues and common interests, including delivering for Shell. Non of this motivation is rooted in IPF or helped by excessive internal competition across borders, between departments or individuals

• Reward

• A supervisor who understands both personal motivation & the business needs.

An organisation where it is transparent how performance & reward align. Also where continuous good performance results in progression (rather than be fobbed off with the CBD excuse..!)

(28)

• Promotion, career progress, financial rewards & recognition, personal motivation and development

• Clear rewarding policy, business/project more value/money driven and not career driven

• Ranking is based on tangible value added targets that have a direct impact on my Directorate and EPE bottom lines rather than adjusting a department to a mathematical function..."the curve"

• Have always given 100% and generally been rewarded for it

• In my case, I motivate myself and set personal goals that I can achieve. This will bring development opportunities.

• Recognition (NB. Not necessarily reward) Clear and consistent targets

Initiative reduction (be able to perform in an area for a reasonable length of time)

• Job satisfaction and development, earning colleagues respect.

• Good Communication Clear Objectives

• LESS KNEE JERK REACTION WORK LIFE BALANCE

LESS LAST MINUTE WORK REQUESTS STANDARDISATION ACROSS ASSETS

• Business goals Business objectives

Operational excellence and the gap with current Personal success

• By being allowed using my experience.

• The business case

The inspirational nature of the EPE journey

The clear commitment and support from my superiors The TR, RBI etc supporting framework

• To have a performance agreement which you have any chance of meeting. The problem is quite simple, things are put on your performance agreement because they are part of your responsibility, but in reality you do not work on them at all, because other stuff is put on your desk all the time with a so called higher priority. Nearly every week you set yourself to objective to get one of things on your performance contract done but nearly every Friday you go home without even have opened the file because other things have taken all you time. Since we work in this reactive environment, the performance agreement becomes totally meaningless.

• Early success in projects or targets

• Confidence in the new structure.

Quality leadership and trust us to carry out our job.

• Increased clarity on what is required from the business. This coming from those above my immediate supervisor.

• Praise, reward and career goal setting.

• Knowing that my Performance is rewarded fairly, rather than being balanced throughout the team. i.e. if someone gets more, then someone gets less in my view is unfair, it always turns into a friendship/personality issue.

• More "meaningful" targets.

Targets set for the benefit of the business not just the individual.

• To be given praise, and also positive criticism where necessary, to receive the proper training to enable me to achieve my goals

• Empowerment/reducing nanny rules around the framework. Give people some latitude in applying the framework and use 360 feedback to further improve. Include performance management as a leadership premise.

• FREEDOM TO DO IT

• Recognition and award Feedback

Reasonable rather than ambitious targets

• More knowledge of the business. More involvement with other departments.

• New challenges / activities - Diversity.

• Must be related to the main aim of our company (HSE, production, costs). Enterprise first.

• Praise and reward for doing a good job or when we do that little bit extra over the top to ensure the company functions smoothly.