Managerial practices can appear to be a bit “crazy” if they are based on beliefs very different than our own. Please keep an open mind as we explore the answers to these three questions. You may think I am a bit crazy because of the possible significant gap in beliefs we may have.
Question #1: “Will an improvement in individual performance by each employee lead to an improvement in overall organization improvement?” A “yes” answer suggests the belief that a “whole” can be improved by improving the individual parts. A “no” answer acknowledges that the improvement of the parts is not enough to create improvement of the whole. In other words, something else is an influence on improvement.
The 1980 Olympics was forever marked in my memory when the USA Hockey Team won the Gold Medal in the final game against the Russians. The team was made up of a group of very talented individuals but those chosen were not necessarily the very best individual performers. The coach, Herb Brooks, was looking for a dynamic interaction between the players. He wanted them to care more about the success of the team than they did about their personal success. Brooks "You're looking for players whose name on the front of the sweater is more important than the one on the back," Brooks once said. "I look for these players to play hard, to play smart and to represent their country."
The dynamic interaction between the parts was more important than the quality of the parts on the USA Hokey Team. This is the fundamental belief that will cause someone to choose my answer, “no”. A significant improvement in the parts can actually cause harm to the entire team. I would use the baseball scandal as the example. Those individual players who used steroids to improve their individual performance eventually hurt the entire team and the image of the entire national pastime.
Question #2: “Will evaluating individual employee performance during a performance evaluation improve the relationship with the employee?” A “yes” answer suggests that someone who is judged will feel trusted and appreciated. A “yes” answer also suggests a belief that a performance evaluation can improve relationships. Research shows that performance evaluations do little or nothing to improve relationships and in fact can often damage trust between an employee and supervisor. Adecco Staffing of North America conducted a research study in March 2006. The results showed of 2,000 people surveyed just 49% of the workers said they find managers take performance appraisals seriously and only 44% said they receive constructive feedback. How can this type of result improve working relationships? A “no” answer acknowledges that criticism can damage a relationship.
Research shows the higher the level of trust in an organization the higher the performance. If trust is a critical element to high performing organizations then developing strong trusting relationships must be a key factor.
Question #3: “Will holding individual employees accountable for reaching their goals improve organizational performance?” A “yes” answer here suggests a belief that achieving individual goals is a key factor in organizational performance. Holding people accountable means what? Does that mean one will get blamed when things don’t go the way they should? What does “accountable” mean anyway. Is it accepting responsibility? Can you accept responsibility for results when you don’t have all factors consistently under your control?
Hero or Bum?
As a young salesman I was assigned one of the largest accounts in our company, namely Gillette. This was a Fortune 500 company with high visibility and great influence in our company. I was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. They had been working on a new product for two years and one month after my assignment to the account I was awarded a very large contract for packaging.
Not being trained properly I was asked to handle the large order and after two months I came to find out that we were going to miss three important ship dates. There was nothing we could do but agree to make the packaging on the dates they were suggesting.
I remember the meeting being so stressful. My boss was giving me glaring looks like I was some kind of evil idiot because I had let this get to a point where the company would have to incur a great deal of overtime to accommodate the orders.
I was a hero one week and then two months later I was a bum. Why? It was because there were factors outside of my control. I had made an important sales goal but I had failed to schedule the order properly because of a lack of training. I was naive and inexperienced.
The fact that I could go from a hero to a bum all in three months tells me that the answer needs to be “no”. How can I be held accountable for something I didn’t understand? How can I receive accolades for an order that fell into my lap?
How can I receive blame for a mistake (poor planning) when I was completely unaware of what I should do? Sure I could have asked the right questions. Perhaps I should have thought about it harder. But what is the lesson here and how can an organization avoid this type of situation in the future? Will holding me accountable for my mistake help the organization in the future? Will the fear of punishment help future young sales people or will a improvements in the training process help more?
The typical managerial practice in the typical organization includes:
• Spending significant energy and resources to evaluate individuals instead of evaluating the quality of the interactions between the employees.
• Working toward results while often damaging or failing to improve working relationships.
• Holding individuals accountable for goals when they have little control over the key factors that generate the results. This approach causes damaged relationships and a climate of blame.
Once one understands different beliefs, these practices, although quite popular, begin to seem a bit crazy.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
3 Reasons to NOT Treat Star Performers Differently
We love our heroes and star performers. I love them too. There is very often a mystique about a hero or star. I watched an interview with Medal of Honor recipient Army Staff Sergeant Salvatore Guinta. Guinta stepped into the line of fire to help two comrades on the battlefield in Afghanistan. He acted seemingly without fear in the face of incredible danger. He succeeded. He is clearly a hero in every sense of the word. However, predictably, he didn’t see himself in that way. He claimed to behave the way he was trained and that every other soldier is expected to behave that same way. He followed principles.
In January of 2009 “Sully” Sullenberger landed a USAIR flight in the Hudson after both engines shut down from a bird strike. He was honored by everyone including the President of the United States, his hometown, and 60 Minutes. He was called a true America hero by many in the press. His actions were called a miracle. He claimed that he and his crew were only doing their jobs. He said, "But I know I can speak for the entire crew when I tell you we were simply doing the job we were trained to do." Sullenberger followed processes based upon solid and proven principles.
Why is it so often that our heroes are so modest and downplay their star qualities and give away their accolades? They know something that we often forget. They have a system supporting them.
In the case of Sullenberger the flight crew was thoroughly trained to react quickly and decisively in an emergency situation. Sullenberger took control of the plane and instructed his co-pilot to read through the appropriate check lists. The check lists and the cooperation of the co-pilot did as much to save all 155 people as did Sullenberger. They all played a significant role in the coordination of a successful heroic event. Sullenberger did NOT act alone. He could not have possibly done it alone yet we still want to hold him up as some super natural champion. Heroes understand systems. The general public doesn’t yet appreciate the influence a system has on performance. We don’t yet think in terms of systems.
There are three reasons why we should not treat star performers differently whether it is in the military, the airlines or in our organizations. First, doing so ignores the overall system interactions that helped contribute to the successes. We can forget the catcher who snags a wild pitch to save a perfect game for the star pitcher. We ignore the co-pilot’s role of reading and fulfilling the emergency engine startup check list or the flight attendant who keeps the passengers form panicking even though they need to stand on the wing of a jet in the middle of the Hudson River. System interactions contribute greatly to a hero’s success. Acknowledging this helps us engage others and understand a bigger picture.
Second, treating “stars” differently prevents us from duplicating successes in the future. By giving all the credit to one person that event becomes a “person dependent event” not a system dependent event. If the success is great don’t we want to duplicate it as much as possible? Sullenberger is now retired. Does that mean we cannot teach others to duplicate his actions? Why can’t we have 100 heroes in USAIR and not just one?
Finally, treating heroes and stars differently prevents us from learning. It creates a barrier to learning. Aren’t we are saying, “We just couldn’t have done it without them?” Instead, isn’t it more important to acknowledge their accomplishments and the system interactions and ask, “What can we learn from this?” Isn’t it just as important to learn from our successes as it is to learn from our mistakes?
So much time and effort is spent now on looking for ways to keep our star performers in our organizations. We court them, provide opportunities for them, we lavish them with praise and bonuses just to be sure we them happy. The next time you see a star being honored think about what we might be missing. What other system interactions need to be honored and who else needs to be engaged? How can we duplicate that same set of circumstances and interactions such that we duplicate the success? Finally, ask, what can we learn? If we want continued success and continued engagement in our organizations we need to stop treating our heroes so differently.
In January of 2009 “Sully” Sullenberger landed a USAIR flight in the Hudson after both engines shut down from a bird strike. He was honored by everyone including the President of the United States, his hometown, and 60 Minutes. He was called a true America hero by many in the press. His actions were called a miracle. He claimed that he and his crew were only doing their jobs. He said, "But I know I can speak for the entire crew when I tell you we were simply doing the job we were trained to do." Sullenberger followed processes based upon solid and proven principles.
Why is it so often that our heroes are so modest and downplay their star qualities and give away their accolades? They know something that we often forget. They have a system supporting them.
In the case of Sullenberger the flight crew was thoroughly trained to react quickly and decisively in an emergency situation. Sullenberger took control of the plane and instructed his co-pilot to read through the appropriate check lists. The check lists and the cooperation of the co-pilot did as much to save all 155 people as did Sullenberger. They all played a significant role in the coordination of a successful heroic event. Sullenberger did NOT act alone. He could not have possibly done it alone yet we still want to hold him up as some super natural champion. Heroes understand systems. The general public doesn’t yet appreciate the influence a system has on performance. We don’t yet think in terms of systems.
There are three reasons why we should not treat star performers differently whether it is in the military, the airlines or in our organizations. First, doing so ignores the overall system interactions that helped contribute to the successes. We can forget the catcher who snags a wild pitch to save a perfect game for the star pitcher. We ignore the co-pilot’s role of reading and fulfilling the emergency engine startup check list or the flight attendant who keeps the passengers form panicking even though they need to stand on the wing of a jet in the middle of the Hudson River. System interactions contribute greatly to a hero’s success. Acknowledging this helps us engage others and understand a bigger picture.
Second, treating “stars” differently prevents us from duplicating successes in the future. By giving all the credit to one person that event becomes a “person dependent event” not a system dependent event. If the success is great don’t we want to duplicate it as much as possible? Sullenberger is now retired. Does that mean we cannot teach others to duplicate his actions? Why can’t we have 100 heroes in USAIR and not just one?
Finally, treating heroes and stars differently prevents us from learning. It creates a barrier to learning. Aren’t we are saying, “We just couldn’t have done it without them?” Instead, isn’t it more important to acknowledge their accomplishments and the system interactions and ask, “What can we learn from this?” Isn’t it just as important to learn from our successes as it is to learn from our mistakes?
So much time and effort is spent now on looking for ways to keep our star performers in our organizations. We court them, provide opportunities for them, we lavish them with praise and bonuses just to be sure we them happy. The next time you see a star being honored think about what we might be missing. What other system interactions need to be honored and who else needs to be engaged? How can we duplicate that same set of circumstances and interactions such that we duplicate the success? Finally, ask, what can we learn? If we want continued success and continued engagement in our organizations we need to stop treating our heroes so differently.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Addicted to Performance Appraisals - Trust and Appraisals Don't Mix
The dictionary defines addiction as the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice that is psychologically or physically habit-forming (as narcotics) to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma. I am convinced business people are addicted to performance appraisals. Up to 90 percent or more of all organizations conduct performance appraisals in some form or another. It is therefore unnerving to realize that appraisal, more often than not, damage trust and performance, the exact opposite of their intended purposes. If one takes few moments to research how employees and/managers feel about conducting performance appraisals, one will find a paradox. The very same sentence will describe how the practice is universally hated and at the same time claim how it is one of the most important tasks for an organization. Surely this is a sign of addiction.
Performance appraisals come in different forms. They may range from the simple written appraisal of an employee’s performance by his manager, to a more intensive method called the 360 degree feedback instrument in which all those who “surround” the employee - customers, boss, colleagues and direct reports – give a rating (a grade). Typically, employees are rated (or graded) on a scale of 1 to 5.
Companies that rely on performance appraisals to evaluate employees have the best of intentions. Unfortunately, however, those good intentions frequently backfire into damaged trust and worse performance. Employees don’t see the value of performance appraisals in their current form. The Watson & Wyatt WorkUSA® 2004 study revealed that only three out of ten U.S. workers say their company’s performance management program actually does what it intends to do - improve performance . And only two out of ten workers say their company helps poorly performing workers improve.
Why are we addicted, why are they not working, and what can we do to break the addiction and replace them with a more effective and universally accepted practice? I hope to provide some answers to these questions here.
Why are we addicted?
We are addicted to performance reviews because we grew up with that same model in school. We have been taught to focus on the importance of improving the individual. The school system insists we all work on our own and it continually grades our individual efforts. The teacher attempts to “download” facts into our “empty skulls” while standing in front of the room, deciding the subject matter (curriculum) for us and pushing through the material to keep with a specified schedule. We are asked questions and are expected to raise our hands individually, competing for her/his time and attention, and give the “right” answer to her/his questions. After the dump of facts then we are tested to see if we remembered. We are graded as individuals. We rarely (at least not as a rule) are asked to work together in teams to share knowledge and learn from each other. We are rarely asked to learn in a group and synergize . We are held responsible for our own grades. We are treated as independent parts in the school. We regurgitate “facts” and rarely are asked to develop our problem solving skills (especially as a team).
As managers and leaders we have applied this same way of thinking about people to our organizations. We treat them as independent parts in the organization with little or no consideration regarding the context (environment) of the behavior. We grade them with little knowledge about how their behavior is influenced by the environment within which they work. There are benefits and drawbacks to this way of thinking. The main benefit is the ease of decision making. Grading an individual is simple and easy to do. The person responsible for the context (environment) has little or no responsibility and therefore has little work to do except assign a grade. They may also have to explain the grade if the individual complains but that rarely happens.
The drawback is, there is little or no evaluation of the context and so any search for flaws in the context rarely happens. If there is a problem in the context it usually will go undetected in this way of thinking. If the grade for the individual is poor, it is assumed the “problem is in the individual, not the context. Problems that reside in the context will continue.
Without trust we can't have predictable employee engagement. Without predictable engagement we can't have predictable performance.
Performance appraisals come in different forms. They may range from the simple written appraisal of an employee’s performance by his manager, to a more intensive method called the 360 degree feedback instrument in which all those who “surround” the employee - customers, boss, colleagues and direct reports – give a rating (a grade). Typically, employees are rated (or graded) on a scale of 1 to 5.
Companies that rely on performance appraisals to evaluate employees have the best of intentions. Unfortunately, however, those good intentions frequently backfire into damaged trust and worse performance. Employees don’t see the value of performance appraisals in their current form. The Watson & Wyatt WorkUSA® 2004 study revealed that only three out of ten U.S. workers say their company’s performance management program actually does what it intends to do - improve performance . And only two out of ten workers say their company helps poorly performing workers improve.
Why are we addicted, why are they not working, and what can we do to break the addiction and replace them with a more effective and universally accepted practice? I hope to provide some answers to these questions here.
Why are we addicted?
We are addicted to performance reviews because we grew up with that same model in school. We have been taught to focus on the importance of improving the individual. The school system insists we all work on our own and it continually grades our individual efforts. The teacher attempts to “download” facts into our “empty skulls” while standing in front of the room, deciding the subject matter (curriculum) for us and pushing through the material to keep with a specified schedule. We are asked questions and are expected to raise our hands individually, competing for her/his time and attention, and give the “right” answer to her/his questions. After the dump of facts then we are tested to see if we remembered. We are graded as individuals. We rarely (at least not as a rule) are asked to work together in teams to share knowledge and learn from each other. We are rarely asked to learn in a group and synergize . We are held responsible for our own grades. We are treated as independent parts in the school. We regurgitate “facts” and rarely are asked to develop our problem solving skills (especially as a team).
As managers and leaders we have applied this same way of thinking about people to our organizations. We treat them as independent parts in the organization with little or no consideration regarding the context (environment) of the behavior. We grade them with little knowledge about how their behavior is influenced by the environment within which they work. There are benefits and drawbacks to this way of thinking. The main benefit is the ease of decision making. Grading an individual is simple and easy to do. The person responsible for the context (environment) has little or no responsibility and therefore has little work to do except assign a grade. They may also have to explain the grade if the individual complains but that rarely happens.
The drawback is, there is little or no evaluation of the context and so any search for flaws in the context rarely happens. If there is a problem in the context it usually will go undetected in this way of thinking. If the grade for the individual is poor, it is assumed the “problem is in the individual, not the context. Problems that reside in the context will continue.
Without trust we can't have predictable employee engagement. Without predictable engagement we can't have predictable performance.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
2 Reasons Why Your Performance Appraisal is NOT Really About You
My sister worked for a company that was about to be sold to an investor. She called me in a panic. Her performance appraisal was scheduled and she was nervous they were about to fire her right before the sale. I assured her the request to schedule a performance appraisal was to provide the new buyer with evidence about the performance of the current employees. I was sure the buyer merely wanted to have some evidence about how effective they were and if they could support the change in ownership.
The next day she called to tell me I was right. Her original fears were unfounded. Her performance review was excellent and met all her expectations. Clearly the seller (my sister’s current employer) wanted to convince the buyer the people were excellent.
Was that performance appraisal really about her or about the sale? Most performance appraisals are not really about the people but instead about some other motivation or intended outcome. This can include things such as a bias, a manipulation, poor leadership, justification for a raise or bonus, justification for a firing, and justification for a promotion or a demotion. Aren’t performance appraisals supposed to be about improving the performance of the individual? If so, why would leaders misuse the policy for their own selfish motivations?
The current performance appraisal process really doesn’t work well and there are two basic reasons why:
1. The basic assumptions behind the current appraisal are flawed
2. The appraisal process is most often manipulated to justify some motivation other than its original purpose e.g. justifying a raise (or bonus) to keep a high performer happy or justifying the firing of a poor performer.
The main assumption of the current appraisal process is that improving the quality of the people will improve the organizational performance. This describes our desire to analyze the parts of a whole in order to understand the whole. This is inconsistent consistent with systems thinking and leaders must embrace systems thinking in order to achieve predictable organization improvement.
Most leaders now assume that poor organizational performance is rooted in poor employee performance. Nearly ninety percent of organizations conduct performance appraisals and that is its main purpose. This is merely a dysfunctional yet sophisticated form of blame. Additional assumptions that follow from this are:
• Individuals have control over the results of their work and the factors that allow them to achieve their goals. This is false. There are always many factors that contribute to the success of a goal.
• Managers can evaluate individual performance separate from the contributions of others and the influence of the work tools, environment etc. This is false. Managers cannot separate their bias (either positive or negative) from their evaluation.
None of these are true because they are inconsistent with systems thinking. Instead, the correct assumption is: “the quality of the interactions between employees (and departments) is more important for improvement of the organization than improving the quality of the people.” In other words, you can’t separate the evaluation of the person from the quality of the interactions that person has with their co-workers and the working environment. If this is true one must conclude that the typical appraisal doesn’t evaluate the individual. It evaluates their interactions. It is not about the person it’s about the interactions of that person in that particular environment.
Leaders often manipulate the appraisal process to serve their own purposes. Just as with my sister, the owner manipulated the process to make all employees “look good” so the new buyer would be impressed. This compromised the opportunity to receive real feedback for improvement. It compromised the truth.
Leaders very often will compromise the process to achieve some short term goal. The appraisal then becomes more about achieving the goal and less about the person receiving the appraisal.
That performance appraisal with your name on it is really NOT about you. It is really about how you are able to interact with others and environmental factors outside of your control.
The next day she called to tell me I was right. Her original fears were unfounded. Her performance review was excellent and met all her expectations. Clearly the seller (my sister’s current employer) wanted to convince the buyer the people were excellent.
Was that performance appraisal really about her or about the sale? Most performance appraisals are not really about the people but instead about some other motivation or intended outcome. This can include things such as a bias, a manipulation, poor leadership, justification for a raise or bonus, justification for a firing, and justification for a promotion or a demotion. Aren’t performance appraisals supposed to be about improving the performance of the individual? If so, why would leaders misuse the policy for their own selfish motivations?
The current performance appraisal process really doesn’t work well and there are two basic reasons why:
1. The basic assumptions behind the current appraisal are flawed
2. The appraisal process is most often manipulated to justify some motivation other than its original purpose e.g. justifying a raise (or bonus) to keep a high performer happy or justifying the firing of a poor performer.
The main assumption of the current appraisal process is that improving the quality of the people will improve the organizational performance. This describes our desire to analyze the parts of a whole in order to understand the whole. This is inconsistent consistent with systems thinking and leaders must embrace systems thinking in order to achieve predictable organization improvement.
Most leaders now assume that poor organizational performance is rooted in poor employee performance. Nearly ninety percent of organizations conduct performance appraisals and that is its main purpose. This is merely a dysfunctional yet sophisticated form of blame. Additional assumptions that follow from this are:
• Individuals have control over the results of their work and the factors that allow them to achieve their goals. This is false. There are always many factors that contribute to the success of a goal.
• Managers can evaluate individual performance separate from the contributions of others and the influence of the work tools, environment etc. This is false. Managers cannot separate their bias (either positive or negative) from their evaluation.
None of these are true because they are inconsistent with systems thinking. Instead, the correct assumption is: “the quality of the interactions between employees (and departments) is more important for improvement of the organization than improving the quality of the people.” In other words, you can’t separate the evaluation of the person from the quality of the interactions that person has with their co-workers and the working environment. If this is true one must conclude that the typical appraisal doesn’t evaluate the individual. It evaluates their interactions. It is not about the person it’s about the interactions of that person in that particular environment.
Leaders often manipulate the appraisal process to serve their own purposes. Just as with my sister, the owner manipulated the process to make all employees “look good” so the new buyer would be impressed. This compromised the opportunity to receive real feedback for improvement. It compromised the truth.
Leaders very often will compromise the process to achieve some short term goal. The appraisal then becomes more about achieving the goal and less about the person receiving the appraisal.
That performance appraisal with your name on it is really NOT about you. It is really about how you are able to interact with others and environmental factors outside of your control.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Attempting Fairness with Policy Alone Damages Engagement
Treating all employees fairly with correct policy sounds important, reasonable, and necessary. All managers should do it. Correct? Unfortunately the concept of fairness is vague at best and misleading at worst because it depends on the interpretation of each individual and that creates too much variation in interpretation. An attempt to manage fairness with policy alone creates a lack of employee engagement especially when the process is ineffective or non-existent.
My daughter Emily is a junior in college and works part time for a catering company. She drives to one of the catering company clients to serve dinner to elderly customers at a Senior Living facility. Her boss rarely sees her. He does little more than schedule the workers. He is rarely at the location because the students work well as a team and need little or no supervision. The process for serving dinner is very predictable and relatively easy to learn and implement.
After working a year for this company Emily was scheduled for a raise. The company policy required she receive a performance review before she could be approved for her raise. This policy was an attempt to treat all employees fairly by insuring all employees who receive a raise in fact deserve one. It sounds reasonable and necessary however, there is a problem. The boss is rarely, if ever, available to observe her performance. He therefore must guess. There is no predictable process in place to access Emily’s performance. The policy exists but there is no way to carry it out because the process can’t deliver it.
The boss and Emily met. He explained his rating of “3.2” on a scale of 1 to 4. In this company’s performance management policy the “1” rating is unsatisfactory and requires immediate dismissal; the “2” required immediate improvement with a performance plan; the “3” means “meets expectations”; and the “4” means “exceptional”. The boss explained that “no one ever” receives a “4” rating because he doesn’t believe in it. Everyone can improve and therefore the rating of “exceptional” is unreachable and unattainable. The boss had his own way of interpreting the policy.
My daughter was disappointed in her rating because she had never missed a day of work scheduled, had filled in for other employees when they called in sick or needed an evening off multiple times, and the clients loved her. She continually received unsolicited accolades and even gifts from the seniors. She was not only disappointed but also appalled by his explanation. She felt de-motivated and discouraged.
She decided to speak up asking, “How can you rate my performance, you are never here?” “That’s not true” he replied. “Occasionally I arrive at the end of the shift in time for me to see you mopping the floor.” Policy alone cannot deliver fairness nor can it deliver engagement. An event that was intended to increase engagement actually damaged it. Policies don’t deliver fairness, processes do. Without predictable processes, based on sound theory, fairness will be non-existent and engagement will be damaged.
While all employees need to understand policy it is not the policy alone that delivers the outcomes. It is the process. Employees also need to be treated as individuals. Their individual needs, characteristics, skills all need to be addressed to honor their unique make-up. The current performance appraisal process doesn’t deliver this (nor will it ever be able to do so in its current form). Although my daughter’s story is a bit unusual in its detail, the outcome is very common, i.e. a disengaged employee after a “good” performance review.
Policy alone cannot deliver fairness and engagement. A process that is both flexible and clear is needed to manage the variation in desired outcomes. Too often a leader “sends down” edicts to the masses and expects compliance. It just doesn’t work that way. That is an unsophisticated way of achieving engagement and the results show it.
My daughter Emily is a junior in college and works part time for a catering company. She drives to one of the catering company clients to serve dinner to elderly customers at a Senior Living facility. Her boss rarely sees her. He does little more than schedule the workers. He is rarely at the location because the students work well as a team and need little or no supervision. The process for serving dinner is very predictable and relatively easy to learn and implement.
After working a year for this company Emily was scheduled for a raise. The company policy required she receive a performance review before she could be approved for her raise. This policy was an attempt to treat all employees fairly by insuring all employees who receive a raise in fact deserve one. It sounds reasonable and necessary however, there is a problem. The boss is rarely, if ever, available to observe her performance. He therefore must guess. There is no predictable process in place to access Emily’s performance. The policy exists but there is no way to carry it out because the process can’t deliver it.
The boss and Emily met. He explained his rating of “3.2” on a scale of 1 to 4. In this company’s performance management policy the “1” rating is unsatisfactory and requires immediate dismissal; the “2” required immediate improvement with a performance plan; the “3” means “meets expectations”; and the “4” means “exceptional”. The boss explained that “no one ever” receives a “4” rating because he doesn’t believe in it. Everyone can improve and therefore the rating of “exceptional” is unreachable and unattainable. The boss had his own way of interpreting the policy.
My daughter was disappointed in her rating because she had never missed a day of work scheduled, had filled in for other employees when they called in sick or needed an evening off multiple times, and the clients loved her. She continually received unsolicited accolades and even gifts from the seniors. She was not only disappointed but also appalled by his explanation. She felt de-motivated and discouraged.
She decided to speak up asking, “How can you rate my performance, you are never here?” “That’s not true” he replied. “Occasionally I arrive at the end of the shift in time for me to see you mopping the floor.” Policy alone cannot deliver fairness nor can it deliver engagement. An event that was intended to increase engagement actually damaged it. Policies don’t deliver fairness, processes do. Without predictable processes, based on sound theory, fairness will be non-existent and engagement will be damaged.
While all employees need to understand policy it is not the policy alone that delivers the outcomes. It is the process. Employees also need to be treated as individuals. Their individual needs, characteristics, skills all need to be addressed to honor their unique make-up. The current performance appraisal process doesn’t deliver this (nor will it ever be able to do so in its current form). Although my daughter’s story is a bit unusual in its detail, the outcome is very common, i.e. a disengaged employee after a “good” performance review.
Policy alone cannot deliver fairness and engagement. A process that is both flexible and clear is needed to manage the variation in desired outcomes. Too often a leader “sends down” edicts to the masses and expects compliance. It just doesn’t work that way. That is an unsophisticated way of achieving engagement and the results show it.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Are You Stealing Accountability?
I love my 10 year old Acura. Although it has 250,000 it runs beautifully. Of course, with a 10 year old car one must expect to replace parts occasionally. One morning the front left ball joint failed and I was stranded at a park with my dogs.
Luckily I have AAA membership. I called and requested a tow. The nature of the breakdown caused the front end to be nearly touching the pavement. I cautioned the AAA agent to send the right kind of tow truck to handle such a situation. She assured me “all our service stations are knowledgeable professional shops”. Of course, you guessed it, when the truck arrived the driver proclaimed, “I brought the wrong kind of truck. I will need to get a different one.” He suggested I call AAA and report the error and gain approval for him to implement the new action.
I took his advice and called AAA. When a woman answered, a different person from the original customer service representative, I realized the explanation was going to be challenging and the accountability for the error was non-existent.
It took a while but the driver returned with the correct truck and I was off to have my car repaired. On the way to the shop I was wondering how, and if, AAA could learn from this situation. I tried to warn the first customer service person to avoid a mistake. The mistake still happened and it caused wasted time for AAA, the tow truck driver, the towing company and the customer (me). What was the root cause(s) of the error and how could AAA learn to avoid it in the future? Unless accountability is set up into the system the answers to these questions will be elusive and the mistakes will likely reoccur.
Accountability means to be responsible and it requires four elements. First people need to be aware of the situation or problem. Second, they must understand a specific process to follow. Third, they must agree to follow the process. Finally, there must be feedback (data or consequences) if the process fails. It is a leader’s responsibility to set up the system so that all four elements are present. Without these elements a leader just ends up blaming people for mistakes and learning is compromised.
In my story all four elements were missing. The initial customer service person was clearly un-aware of the need or the meaning of the information I provided her regarding the condition of the car and the type of truck needed. In addition, she had no clear process (I am guessing because of my impression) to handle this information or request. Third, she obviously made no agreement to follow such a process. Finally, it seems there was no feedback to either her or any other customer service person regarding the mistake (again I am guessing).
Are you setting up accountability or just blaming people for mistakes when they occur? If you don’t set up accountability then you are stealing the opportunity from people to optimize their learning. Perhaps if there was a process to escalate the call to a supervisory level when a puzzling or challenging question was asked that might have begun to set up the accountability system in AAA. Perhaps if the telephone system was set up to quickly escalate the call, as needed, to a knowledgeable technician. Perhaps if the customer service person was trained to recognize the opportunity and to transfer the call, the second element of accountability would be met. Perhaps if there was a feedback loop to report wasted time for tow truck drivers it would create the forth element of accountability. Perhaps if there was a team of knowledgeable process experts who could study the root causes and therefore modify the process or change the training processes (consequences and feedback) the mistake would not be repeated.
It is a leader’s job to set up the accountability system. In the 15 years of consulting rarely have I seen an organization with a robust accountability system. Instead, leaders tend to look for mistakes, guess at root causes on their own, and use a performance appraisal process to punish the employee who unfortunately found him or herself in the middle of a dysfunctional system.
Are you stealing accountability from your organization and from your people? Stop now and set up the four key elements. Stealing accountability is wasteful and it creates victims not leaders.
Luckily I have AAA membership. I called and requested a tow. The nature of the breakdown caused the front end to be nearly touching the pavement. I cautioned the AAA agent to send the right kind of tow truck to handle such a situation. She assured me “all our service stations are knowledgeable professional shops”. Of course, you guessed it, when the truck arrived the driver proclaimed, “I brought the wrong kind of truck. I will need to get a different one.” He suggested I call AAA and report the error and gain approval for him to implement the new action.
I took his advice and called AAA. When a woman answered, a different person from the original customer service representative, I realized the explanation was going to be challenging and the accountability for the error was non-existent.
It took a while but the driver returned with the correct truck and I was off to have my car repaired. On the way to the shop I was wondering how, and if, AAA could learn from this situation. I tried to warn the first customer service person to avoid a mistake. The mistake still happened and it caused wasted time for AAA, the tow truck driver, the towing company and the customer (me). What was the root cause(s) of the error and how could AAA learn to avoid it in the future? Unless accountability is set up into the system the answers to these questions will be elusive and the mistakes will likely reoccur.
Accountability means to be responsible and it requires four elements. First people need to be aware of the situation or problem. Second, they must understand a specific process to follow. Third, they must agree to follow the process. Finally, there must be feedback (data or consequences) if the process fails. It is a leader’s responsibility to set up the system so that all four elements are present. Without these elements a leader just ends up blaming people for mistakes and learning is compromised.
In my story all four elements were missing. The initial customer service person was clearly un-aware of the need or the meaning of the information I provided her regarding the condition of the car and the type of truck needed. In addition, she had no clear process (I am guessing because of my impression) to handle this information or request. Third, she obviously made no agreement to follow such a process. Finally, it seems there was no feedback to either her or any other customer service person regarding the mistake (again I am guessing).
Are you setting up accountability or just blaming people for mistakes when they occur? If you don’t set up accountability then you are stealing the opportunity from people to optimize their learning. Perhaps if there was a process to escalate the call to a supervisory level when a puzzling or challenging question was asked that might have begun to set up the accountability system in AAA. Perhaps if the telephone system was set up to quickly escalate the call, as needed, to a knowledgeable technician. Perhaps if the customer service person was trained to recognize the opportunity and to transfer the call, the second element of accountability would be met. Perhaps if there was a feedback loop to report wasted time for tow truck drivers it would create the forth element of accountability. Perhaps if there was a team of knowledgeable process experts who could study the root causes and therefore modify the process or change the training processes (consequences and feedback) the mistake would not be repeated.
It is a leader’s job to set up the accountability system. In the 15 years of consulting rarely have I seen an organization with a robust accountability system. Instead, leaders tend to look for mistakes, guess at root causes on their own, and use a performance appraisal process to punish the employee who unfortunately found him or herself in the middle of a dysfunctional system.
Are you stealing accountability from your organization and from your people? Stop now and set up the four key elements. Stealing accountability is wasteful and it creates victims not leaders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
