This is the third in a series of articles dealing with Performance Management (and more precisely, Performance Improvement).
First, some context and my angle. Performance management means different things to different people. I am not speaking here about systems that record employee ratings and rankings, that train employees, that capture 360 degree feedback, that build success plans, nor that help managers write the annual performance review document. I am less interested in measuring and managing current performance, than I am in how management can actually lift measurable performance metrics for the organization as a whole by improving the performance of individual employees through the use of a new generation of practices and behaviors. My angle is the belief that easy to use and understand software applications can instantiate and perpetuate these new practices.
The title of this article sets the stage: Performance Management is not an event. Do we really think that a once-per-year “performance review” meeting followed by a two-page performance appraisal document (signed by manager and employee) has a significant effect on improving performance throughout the year? Do we really think that the goal-setting that goes on in these meetings is the motivation for excelling?
Performance improvement is a process – a set of consistent behaviors and practices, carried out by and between managers and employees, that are designed to stimulate, motivate, and evaluate personal performance. The regular one-on-one meeting with your boss, for example, has significantly more impact and effect on individual performance than the yearly review meeting. What is even more important than the regularity of these encounters is the quality of the conversation that goes on in them.
The Nature and Quality of the Performance Conversation
So how can we begin to talk about the quality of a conversation? What are its characteristics? Would we know one if we heard it? And, if we could begin to describe a quality performance-related conversation in some repeatable terms, is there really any way to inculcate and socialize the organization so all managers follow the same pattern and general approaches? These are the questions I will address in the remaining portion of this article and the one to follow.
The use of the term “conversation” does not necessarily imply or require a face-to-face meeting. The conversation referred to is an explicit, two-sided, back and forth interchange of comments and concerns regarding the requested results. The dialog can happen in-person or remotely, synchronously or asynchronously.
I propose that an effective performance-related conversation will exhibit the following 6 observable characteristics:
- Openness and candor between the manager and the performer
- Opportunity for the performer to negotiate and agree upon the terms of delivery
- Clear commitment by the performer for achieving the desired outcomes
- Continuity of the dialog; each party stays engaged and provides regular updates
- Ongoing assessment by the performer regarding the status of their commitment
- Immediate acknowledgement and assessment by the manager of the delivered outcome
The first three characteristics will be discussed in this posting and the fourth through sixth characteristic will be discussed in a future posting.
The first characteristic of an effective performance-related conversation is openness and candor. The manager and the employee must first identify and agree upon what level of performance the employee is capable of or is being asked to perform. Even at this stage there can be difficulties. It is a rare employee who readily admits what their full capabilities really are. Due to the penalty of failure atmosphere within most companies, employees profer modest goals and then “exceed” them. This common sense approach generally guides employee behavior. We all want to impress and not disappoint so we imply a level of performance that is well within our comfort zone. It would be a rare manager who could coax a straight answer to the question “what do you really think you could accomplish?” Such straight talk only occurs when there is a genuine sense of partnership between the manager and employee; a sense that the manager is not just the order-giver, but is rather the employee’s true supporter and ally. Underlying this is a shared sense of how possible failure to deliver will be tolerated. How organizations handle failure is a primary driver of employee behavior.
The second characteristic is a genuine sense of negotiation. Where the employee is being asked to make a firm commitment they are taking on risk. Where there is risk, there must be negotiation. The manager can make a request that the employee feels is risky. But, then, the employee has to be able to say: “No – I can not fully commit to the requested delivery date and/or expected final output.” For the employee to make a valid commitment, an honest negotiation option must be an acceptable response, e.g., “No, I can not commit to this level of achievement, but I will commit to this delivery date and provide this output.” Each of the parties needs to recognize and agree when risks are being borne and how each will behave if performance or output falls short. The employee can say: “This is what I think I can deliver, but if this happens then I think I can deliver a different level”. The manager is then able to respond: “If I take care of this concern for you, then what more could you do?” There is a sense of real partnership and trust where both parties make explicit commitments to each other that involve mutual dependencies and obligations.
This is more like a peer-to-peer conversation – it is definitely not a traditional top-down conversation. Moreover, this type of negotiation is actually quite rare today in corporate America. Few employees have the courage or ability to negotiate; yet all feel that the “pocket veto” (i.e. allowing the request to go unchallenged at first while knowing it will not actually get done) is just fine. Perhaps they sense that an up-front confrontation is difficult and the probability is high that the manager will forget the request over time. For the manager who seeks to gain real and continual commitment they must allow for and present real room for negotiation when a request is made.
The third characteristic is a shared commitment for the outcome. People excel when they are committed to achieving outcomes, not just working down a list of assignments they have been tasked to complete or perform. Just “showing up” and “doing your best effort” will achieve the acceptable outcomes a portion of the time. Excelling, however, requires real commitment. Having publicly committed oneself – having, in effect, made a promise to achieve a resolution to a shared concern by a certain date – has at least three positive effects.
- First, the conversation gets much more precise as each of the parties share expectations and concerns.
- Second, the performer is more likely to push themselves to do that “little” extra to keep their public promise.
- Third, as concerns arise that jeopardize delivery, the employee is motivated to immediately renegotiate terms with the manager / customer thus incenting an early warning of possible breakdowns in terms of due date or deliverables.
The first three characteristics described above are devoted to the initial stage of an effective performance-related conversation – the meeting of the minds and the proper formation of a clear agreement to deliver. A follow-on posting will discuss the desirable characteristics in the follow on stages of the conversation – delivery and acknowledgement.