This is the third in a series of articles dealing with Performance Management (and more precisely, Performance Improvement). This is the second of 2 parts to Performance Management: A Conversation Not an Event.
In the prior posting I focused on the first three of the following six characteristics of an effective performance-related conversation, the result of which was the forging of a clear agreement to deliver.
- 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 and updates by the performer regarding the status of their commitment
- Immediate acknowledgement and assessment by the manager of the delivered outcome
This article discusses the final three characteristics of the conversation that deal with what transpires during delivery, acknowledgement, and closing the loop of the conversation.
The fourth characteristic is continuity. Continuity is similar to, though not the same as, follow up. Effective performance management is an ongoing conversation; the conversation is active and two-sided. This includes regular one-on-one face-to-face meetings and conversations as well as the thread of e-mails that pertain to the achievement of the agreed upon outcomes. There is a shared memory, along with some documentation, of how the conversation was initiated, what goals and concerns were expressed, what agreements were made, what challenges were encountered along the way, and what outcomes have been achieved. Managers need to become better “customers” by providing clear delivery and output requirements, making better detailed and informative requests and staying engaged throughout the entire process. The manager does not delegate and then simply ask: “Did you do it?” The delegation of a task is not the end of a performance conversation, but rather the beginning of a genuine collaboration.
A fifth characteristic is the ongoing assessment and updates by the performer as to the status or “health” of their agreement. Goals are not always met or immediately achievable, tasks encounter problems, and performers need to be forthcoming as they become aware of possible shortfalls in delivery or complexity of the deliverable. Because the manager is now “counting on” the employee to deliver, there is a heightened responsibility on the part of the performer to report progress, particularly if they sense the target date might be missed. As soon as there is any doubt that they may not make the delivery as planned, instead of “putting their head in the sand” and permitting the manager to rely on hope alone, the performer updates and re-engages with their manager about renegotiating the commitment. Early warning of possible problems is a hallmark of these conversations, as is renegotiation in light of new information. Commitments that can no longer be met are identified early when remedial action and adjustments are most often less costly and more easily corrected. Similarly, if the manager’s original concerns change or there is a change of direction, the manager is obliged to immediately inform the employee and negotiate new deliveries.
Of course, having to report delays or (potentially) missed deadlines are the most challenging portions of the conversation, and, if performers have agreed to stretch for really superior results, there will be more of these “negative” reports. It is precisely in these moments when the manager’s behavior is critical. If the manager responds to “bad news” with a sense of shared commitment and partnership they will join in the performer’s concern and help solve it. Recriminations, if any, will be minimal. It is not about extracting a commitment from the employee and then beating them up if it is not done. There is just as much responsibility about being a good customer as there is being a good performer. Partner-like behavior builds trust and makes it easier for the performer to report problems. We all know that issues or problems caught early are much easier to resolve. Prompting early notice of breakdowns is a key factor for improving overall organization performance.
The sixth characteristic is honest and immediate acknowledgement and assessment of the deliverable(s) by the manager. Managers should not wait until the end of the year having built up a library of good news and developmental areas to finally share. Managers are engaged throughout the delivery and provide clear and candid assessments about whether and how their concerns were addressed. These mini-reviews and assessments are at the heart of an organization’s continuous learning cycle.
Conversation outcomes are different too
The outcomes from a dialog with these six characteristics are also very different. The manager leaves the first “meeting of minds” conversation with a confident feeling that the performer is committed to achieving the goal/project according to the negotiated agreement. He can count on the performer’s commitment, though this is not to say that they have blind confidence in the outcome. Having had a candid discussion about the performer’s concerns and risks entailed, the manager may even have a less confident feeling than before. Rather than “simply” assigning a task with little or no discussion and assuming it will get done, i.e., a “false” confidence, the manager in these conversations is much more engaged with all the possibilities and the pitfalls associated with the task. Being confident in the employee’s commitment, however, provides the manager with a solid sense that accountability for delivery has been taken on, and is now “owned” by the employee. A subtle, but critical shift has thus occurred.
This shift enables the manager to reduce the need to micromanage. This alone frees up organizational “waste” in the form of managers’ time and systems spent on checking up, e.g., picture the wasted time a project manager spends each week polling everyone on the team and updating an MS Project Plan to see if each performer is on target with their deliveries.
The performer, for their part, leaves the conversation with a feeling of real commitment to achieving the outcome: Just “working hard at it” and “doing my best” or “giving my best effort” is no longer adequate. The performer has made an agreement that they do not want to break. There is no room for cynicism regarding the delivery. Under this scenario the performer is being treated like a full partner. They have not just been assigned a new task that can be put on the top on the pile of other tasks. The performer has engaged in a frank and careful conversation laying out their capabilities and constraints. The performer and manager have negotiated a delivery that can be met.
Performance-related conversations that exhibit the six characteristics mentioned above achieve an entirely different quality than typical task assignments. Both the requester and performer are upfront with each other, striving together for something more than average outcomes, and with increasing trust. The soft core of improving performance lies exactly here.