I stated earlier that performance evaluation (management) is not a one-time event, held at the close of a performance cycle.  It is an ongoing process that IS the cycle! The leader and the direct report have established the performance expectations (SMART Goals), and have agreed on a form of monitoring the performance that both have access to.

Any good coach will tell you that they do not just tell the players what they want done and then let them go off and do it.  Yes, during the game the coach is on the sidelines guiding, supporting, inspiring, overseeing, setting tempo and direction – after all, it is up to the players to execute the game plan.  But between games the coach is evaluating and developing the players to be ready for the next game – introducing new ways of accomplishing the goals as well as making corrections for what happened at the last game, regardless of what its outcome was.

The same is true in the workplace.  Leaders and team members must be in regular communication with each other to be alert to:

• What is working well
• Where possible problems or opportunities may surface
• Work out solutions to problem situations as they arise

NO NEWS IS GOOD NEWS?

While that may be an adage, it holds no truth in today’s workplace.  Employees today want to know how they are doing – how they are performing against the agreed-upon expectations, and how their contributions are adding value to the organization.  If your monitoring system is set up properly, this information can be retrieved by the individual at any time.  So why should the leader have to say anything at all, right?  Wrong!  It is one thing to have an impersonal system spit the numbers back to you.  It is something completely different to have a human being – especially one who is in authority – recognize the accomplishment and/or contribution.  To share in the glory of the limelight.

We have already discussed the components of effective feedback – that it is required not just for when things are not going well (developmental), but when things are going well (positive).  Feedback occurs on-the-spot and is usually informal in nature – a friendly e-mail, phone call, or a quick face-to-face interaction.

When it comes to a positive coaching discussion, it goes into a little more depth.  The leader and employee not only recognize the performance level and results, but can also talk about its impact on the employee – how (s)he accomplished the goal, what were some of the obstacles that were overcome, how the employee felt during the process.  This is more of a “learning” discussion that has in its purpose not only recognition, but potentially uncovering a best practice, opportunities for improving the process, and even a deeper understanding of the individual’s motivations.

“WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU…”

This statement is fraught with ambiguity, which usually makes the recipient want to do into “duck and cover” mode.  Yet, if handled properly, can be a call to expand an individual’s repertoire of value to the organization.  This is called “proactive coaching.”

In this discussion the leader and employee talk about the new task that is being assigned, the benefits to both the individual (WIIFM) and the organization, what the new assignment involves (scope, focus, skills, etc.), possible barriers to successfully accomplishing the assignment, possible contingency plans should those barriers arise, where this assignment falls on the individual’s priority list (and what other priorities may be adjusted as a result of taking on this new one), finishing with the establishment of one or more SMART goals that become part of the individual’s performance plan.

A variant on this discussion is where the employee comes to the leader with a recognized opportunity that is of value to the organization and is looking for the leader’s guidance in how best to take on this newly discovered possibility.  The same elements of the proactive coaching discussion are in play, but the role of the leader shifts from the one who is giving the information to the one who is asking for information, and helping the employee process all of the thinking that needs to go into the action plan.

“HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.”

If an individual is not performing to expectations, they probably already know it and, for some reason, have elected not to discuss it.  The coach’s role here is to recognize the less-than-expected level of performance, and inspire the individual to improve.  Remember, no one cannot make an individual improve – you can only encourage them to do so.  The choice is completely up to the person being coached.

Just as the positive coaching discussion is an extension of positive feedback, this discussion is an expansion of developmental feedback.  The coach is doing a “deeper dive” in to the situation, its causes, and developing an action plan to get the individual back on track.

In this type of “reactive” discussion, the coach’s responsibility is to:

• Identify the expected and actual level of performance
• Present the natural consequences (impact) of the poor performance for the individual, the other people involved in the process, and the organization
• Encourage the individual to explore causes (not just symptoms) of the poor performance
• Mutually discover clear courses of action to eliminate the identified causes.
• Create and agree to an action plan from the list of possible solutions – including any additions or modifications to measurement of performance.
• Make sure the individual’s performance management plan is modified accordingly.

Despite the inherent “negative” atmosphere of this type of discussion, it can become a positive event, if it is handled properly.  Yes, there is a problem that needs to be addressed, but if approached in a positive manner – conducting the discussion in a way that encourages the individual to accept the responsibility for improving performance, even what seems to be the most difficult discussion a leader can experience can have successful results.

HEY, COACH!…

The performance management process is ongoing throughout the performance cycle.  Leaders and employees have clearly established expected levels of performance.  But a myriad of environmental elements can affect a person’s day-to-day performance.  Both parties are expected to monitor that performance and be alert to any circumstances (positive and negative) that can alter desired outcomes.

The earlier a performance problem is captured and addressed, the better the chances of successful completion of the tasks and assignments.  If improvements are made, reinforcing the new levels of performance need to be recognized as well.

As new opportunities arise, take advantage of them.  Leaders can guide employees to help them think through everything that needs to be considered before taking on the new assignment.

If things are going well, call it out in group as well as individual arenas.

What you are likely to find is that when it comes time for that end-of-cycle performance review – it won’t be as difficult this time around.

John Lake has been a Business Culture and Performance Consultant/Trainer for over 20 years.  JDLake Communications, LLC is designed to help organizations retain the talent they don’t know they are about to lose.

The only human beings that really appreciate regular change are babies.

It never fails.  You get a great performance plan written and agreed to.  You enter it into your organization’s system, and start working on achieving those goals.  Then it happens – your leader comes to you with a “change in plans.”  What happened to the original plan?  Why the change?  Why now?

FROM THE OTHER SIDE…

I’ve lost count of the number of leaders that have complained to me about the “resistance” they get when they have to initiate a change in plans or process.  “Why can’t everybody just get on board?”  When I get that question from a leader, my first response is to ask them, “When did you get them involved in the change?”  If I don’t get a quizzical look, like “what do you mean ‘involve’ them,” they’ll usually tell me “When they had to get it done.”  In which case, I just say, “You’re a little late.”

AGENTS, CONDUITS, AND VICTIMS

Space does not allow me to go down the Managing Change rabbit-hole right now, so here is the Cliff’s Notes version of the Readers Digest edition of the synopsis.

Change is a process, not an event.  The change process starts with an event – a decision to do things differently.  This “trigger event” can either be caused by an outside force (changes in markets, etc.) or an internal one (changes in leadership, vision, focus, etc.).  But regardless, someone makes the decision that things will be done differently – the Change Agent.  The change agent is the first to go through the process and is ahead of everyone else.  But because (s)he sees the reason – benefits – for the change, they go through the process rather quickly.

The leader then has the sub-leaders carry out the change – The Change Conduits.  It is their responsibility to relay the rationale behind the change, manage their way through their own journey, and guide their followers through the journey along the way.  If this is not done effectively (i.e., the rationale and benefits are not embraced or explained well by the conduits), the whole journey can end up the equivalent of an organizational train wreck.

Then there are those who are responsible for executing the change – the “Victims.”  I put that in quotes because that mindset is not always the case.  There are basically 3 reactions to change:

“What took you so long?” These are the early adopters – eager to get going with the new way.  Like the Agents, they see the rationale and the benefits and come through the process relatively quickly.

“Huh?” These are the confused.  Somewhere in the communication process, there was static on the line.  They can easily lose sight of the new vision – the desired future state – and start wandering, lost somewhere in the transition between the old and the new performance expectations.

“I don’t think so.” These are the resistive.  They are focused more on the losses (what is going away) than the gains that replace them.  They lost the “What’s in it for me?” element and are holding on to those things that are most important to them for as long as they can.

Change is like rainfall – everybody knows you need it, but no one wants to get wet.

The key here is effective communication (it always boils down to this, doesn’t it).  As I have said before, the more people know why they are being asked to do something (in this case, change the course or direction of their energies), the more likely they will buy into it.  So here are a few thoughts for discussing mid-stream changes to the performance expectations:

• The time to initiate the conversation is as soon as you know something is coming, NOT when it is suddenly upon them – startling is likely to produce aberrant behavior.

• Allow time for the process to work its way through.  Remember, Change Agents move faster Change Conduits who move faster than Change Victims.  You will probably have to coach the conduits and victims through the process:

• Acknowledging the loss of what they saw as important
• Helping them paint the picture of gain in the new environment
• Gaining their commitment to engaging in the new environment

• Discuss what is (and is not) going away and why.

• Apply the same skills you used when you set the initial expectations.  Allow time to think through and apply ideas.

• If you are adding expectations – as opposed to replacing – remember that something may have to give.  Look at the expectations in the order of priorities.  Are the lower priority items really necessary?  Can they be dropped off the plan, or at least temporarily suspended until the added expectation takes hold?

Everyone has their own “red-line” level – their point of diminishing returns.  It is your job as a leader to know where that red-line level is.  Exceed that maximum, and you run the risk of burning them out and/or losing them altogether.

John Lake has been a Business Culture and Performance Consultant/Trainer for over 20 years.  JDLake Communications, LLC is designed to help organizations retain the talent they don’t know they are about to lose.

4th in a series

Do you hear that rumbling in the distance?  Or maybe it’s not so far away.  It’s the sound of a run – a run on your talent bank.  And if you are resting on your engagement rating laurels, I’ve got bad news for you.  Engagement no longer is connected to retention.  In fact, your “highly engaged” individuals are more likely to be the first to go!

What’s driving the departures?  In a word – frustration.  According to Hay Group authors Mark Royal and Tom Agnew, it is frustration that leads to indifference, apathy, and a loss of emotional commitment – and it is highest among “engaged” employees, according to recent studies.

What’s causing the frustration?

Loss of Focus.  While people are anxious to contribute (a good thing), there are so many “priorities” that the question of “How can I contribute?” has been replaced by “How can I keep pace?”  And leaders are not helping the matter.  As corporate belt-tightening has become a continuing practice, “do more with less” has become “do everything with nothing,” and the average employee is experiencing a “growing sense of insignificance.”

So how does performance management help solve the problem?

It starts with understanding the alignment of goals to the organization’s priorities.  The individual performer needs to know what value his/her work is adding to the organization.  Not just what they are being asked (or told) to do, but why it is important – to them, the group, and the organization.

This connection starts long before the performance expectation discussion is conducted.  It is the leader’s responsibility to communicate to the team members what is going to be important to the department for the next performance cycle.  Granted, priorities and goals may change down the line, and we will discuss that in a later post, but you have to start somewhere. When individuals, especially high performers, know the “why” behind the expectations, they are more able to suggest ideas, accept the challenges, and perform at their best because they understand the value their contribution adds to the process as well as the overall goals of the organization.

In the previous post, I talked about creating effective, SMART goals for the in dividual contributor that are aligned with the department objectives.  Who creates these goals?  It’s a collaborative effort between the individual and his/her leader.  Yes, I said collaborative.  While the leader does have final say in the matter, it should be an idea that starts in the head of the individual and gets discussed and agreed to during the set ting expectations dialog.  People have more buy-in to something they thought of than of something that was forced upon them. (Remember how you felt when your parents told you that you HAD to some chore?  Same concept.)

When it comes time for the Setting Expectations Discussion, both parties are ready and actually looking forward to the discussion.  The individual contributor has his/her ideas for meeting the goals, the supervising manager has the big picture perspective to measure the final agreements against.  And so they begin – walking through the individual expectations goal by goal.  If issues or concerns arise, they are empathetically dealt with then and there.  Levels of required support for each goal are also discussed.  Some goals will be relatively easy to reach.  Others will require a certain amount of guidance, coaching, and development.  But this gets agree to up front, so each party knows what they are responsible for to make sure the goals are met.

Red-Lining

Just like the tachometer on your car, there is a limit to how much you can push an individual to perform.  As I mentioned at the top of this post, many employees feel they are already in the “red zone” and are about to burn out their engines.  How does this get prevented?  Priorities!

“Do you want me to rush this rush, or rush the rush I’m rushing now?”

As each goal gets discussed, it is given a particular place on the priority ladder.  Not all goals are created equal.  Some carry more weight than others, and the understanding of that weight is the responsibility of both the individual contributor and the supervising manager.  That way when tasks compete for an individual’s time and attention, the department/organizational priorities become the planning filter.  If priorities need to be adjusted, it becomes the responsibility of the individual to discuss that adjustment with his/her leader.

I have had many of these discussions with my leaders throughout various performance cycles.  As a new task comes into my purview, I need to know where it should be placed on the priority list.  If that list is full (I’m dangerously close to the Red Line), my leader and I talked about reshuffling the list, usually dropping something that was lower on the list until the new task was completed.

Working Within The Matrix

I know of situations where an individual contributor is responsible to more than one supervising manager.  If that is the case, these managers need to work together to make sure the combination of their expectations do not red-line the individual contributor.  The responsibility for this should fall on the supervising manager to whom the individual directly reports (i.e., the one who signs the payroll authorization).

The whole purpose of the setting expectation discussion is that each party comes away with a complete understanding of not only what is expected, but why that expectation exists, and its priority in the grand scheme of things.  When these three items are in alignment, it makes it easier for the individual contributor to devote his/her discretionary energies to what is most important to the organization.

Next post will discuss what should happen when priorities/expectations change mid-stream.

John Lake has been a Business Culture and Performance Consultant/Trainer for over 20 years.  JDLake Communications, LLC is designed to help organizations retain the talent they don’t know they are about to lose.

3rd in a series

A senior-level manager showed me an interesting piece of information a while back.  It was the compilation of the performance evaluations for a particular department.  What initially caught my eye was that all of the individuals in the department had been rated as “above expectations.”  I commented on the absence of the expected “bell-curve” distribution, which was the obvious conclusion, but then the manager pointed out that the department, as a whole, missed expectations by about 10%.  He then asked the big question:  “How can everyone be ‘above expectations’ when the group missed its year-end target?”

The answer is two-fold.

First, the supervising manager rated the individual employees on intent/energy spent, not the actual numbers.  Out of fear of demoralizing the employees, the supervising manager ignored the reality of performance and basically gave them an “A” for effort.  This is the business equivalent of giving everybody a trophy just for participating!

The root cause of this problem is a basic misunderstanding of the intention behind the performance management process.  The performance management process is an accepted tool that is used to measure how well an individual (and group) is meeting the expectations of the department/organization.  We talked earlier about the alignment of expectations – that the individual’s performance needs to be connected and seen as a part of the whole department’s performance – and on up the ladder.  So expectations are established at the higher level and translated down to the department and distributed to the individuals in the group.  If a supervising manager does not handle this distribution properly, you get into trouble later when it comes to evaluating performance.

Let’s use a manufacturing example…

Dept X, made up of 4 employees, needs to produce 100 widgets per day.  Simple math would tell you that each employee would be required to produce 25 per day.  The evaluation would be rather easy.  If an employee produces 25 widgets per day, they would “meet expectations.”  Produce 24 or less, they would be “below expectations.”  Produce 26 or greater – “above expectations.”

But in the real world, people have different performance capacities.  Let’s say that Employee A is considered a “high performer” – capable of producing far more than 25 widgets a day.  Employees B and C are average performers – 25 widgets a day are just about right for them.  Employee D is new to the job and is currently training into the position.  To ask this employee for 25 would be considered a “stretch goal” for the time being.  Eventually (s)he will get there, but not right now.

Here is how the distribution would look:

In this illustration, the lower number for employees A, B, and C would be the minimum expected (25) for a “meets expectation” rating.  For employee D, a lower expectation of 18 is only during training and would be raised periodically throughout the performance cycle.  It’s the high number on the range that is important here.  This is the threshold that establishes where the “exceeds expectations” rating starts.  Employee A’s threshold is higher because (s)he is a known high performer – more can be expected of them.  Employee D’s high point on the range is currently equivalent to the average “meets expectations,” but only for this performance cycle.  In the next cycle, his/her range will probably be equal to B’s and C’s.  In this way, the supervising manager keeps the department numbers at the forefront, knowing how each individual will contribute to the whole expectation.  As employee D’s performance some up to standard (25-27 per day), Employee A’s numbers can be called down to equal the rest of the group.  However, this might cause employee A to be less challenged.  So the supervising manager might add a new goal in a different area (i.e, learn a different skill set applicable to the current – or future – job) to further develop this high performing employee.

So in SMART terms, the written goal for the production scenario might look like this:

Produce widgets at an average rate of [low] to [high] per month.
SPECIFIC:  Widgets being produced
MEASURABLE:  [low] to [high] range
ATTAINABLE: The low number is the absolute minimum, the high number is the stretch goal.
RELEVANT:  It contributes to the overall department/organizational requirements.
TIME-BOUND:  The average will be calculated per month, allowing for some flexibility as long as the overall goal is met.

The low number of the range is the MINIMUM an employee would have to perform at to get a “meets expectations” rating.  The high number in the range is considered the “stretch goal,” what would be considered “above and beyond” expected performance.

As long as the individual’s numbers meet expectations, the department should also be in that range.  If one person’s numbers fall below expectations, in order for the department to meet expectations, someone will probably be performing in the “exceeds expectations” range.  But now the performance results are based on specific, known data.

That’s Quantity – What About Quality?

OK, so they are pushing to get 25 widgets out per day.  How do you make sure they are GOOD widgets?  A second expectation is put into place.  The first question is “What is an acceptable rework level?”  A six sigma person will tell you that the number is extremely close to zero.  But is that reasonable to expect?  Probably not.  It may be a stretch goal, but not a day-to-day type of number. So the base number must be calculated to a point of reasonableness.  Then you can create your stretch goal point to be on the other side of the range.  So let’s say that the company can tolerate two widgets being sent back per department per day.  With four employees, that’s  a rework rate of .5 per day.  There is the top part of your range.  The low number is the stretch goal.  For sake of argument, let’s say .1 for the department.

The SMART goal would read:
Maintain a monthly widget rework average of between .1 and .5 per day.

If an employee has a rework rate greater than .5, they are “below expectations.”  If their rework rate falls between .1 and .5 per day, they “meet expectations.”  If their average rework per day number is lower than .1 per day, they would “exceed expectations.”

Again, this data can be easily monitored by both the individual and supervising manager so there are no surprises when a performance evaluation discussion takes place.

So you now have two goals that are easy to understand.  They help the individual employees know how their work is connected to the department’s performance, and can be easily monitored and either reinforced (id performance is at or above expectations) or quickly corrected (if falling behind).

You have also split the performance expectation into two manageable areas – quantity and quality – measuring each separately.

In the next post, I’ll talk about how to conduct the Setting Expectations Discussion in a way that helps establish understanding and agreement.

John Lake has been a Business Culture and Performance Consultant/Trainer for over 20 years.  JDLake Communications, LLC is designed to help organizations retain the talent they don’t know they are about to lose.

2nd in a series

Part 1 dealt with the practical side of the problem with performance reviews.  The other element is more personal – the disconnect of COMMUNICATION.  Again, most managers/supervisors see the performance process as the individual “events” called reviews.  Performance reviews are scheduled events, yes.  But performance evaluation/management is an ongoing process.  It starts with the discussion where performance and behavioral expectations are established and continues throughout the performance cycle.

The number one rule in a performance review is “No Surprises.”

As I stated earlier, the Performance Review is just that – a formal discussion that looks back upon all of the informal discussions (face-to-face, phone, and e-mail) that have occurred to date.  Which brings us to our first disconnect – the overall process.  The individual should have no question where they stand with regard to their performance expectations at any time during the process.

Regular feedback needs to be part of the process – whether positive or developmental – if there is to be any chance of the performance review actually living up to its premise.  Granted, some people do not like receiving a lot of feedback, others crave every bit they can get.  The frequency is established between the individual and his/her leader at the outset of the performance cycle.

A QUICK WORD ABOUT FEEDBACK

Allow me a “rabbit hole” here to discuss a practice that many managers have asked me about when it comes to giving feedback.  They call it the “Sandwich Technique.”  You give a piece of positive feedback, followed by developmental, then wrapped up with another positive.

How disingenuous!

Those leaders that employ that technique risk losing the trust of their followers.  Here’s how.  If I know my leader uses this technique, I’ll listen to the first element (positive), but not pay much attention to it because I know the second (developmental) is coming.  So the first piece of feedback, no matter how genuine, is seen as the “numbing agent” for the pain about to come.  As one employee put it, “Your shaking my hand with your right, and I know you have a knife in the left – Gotcha!.  The third element (positive) is ignored altogether because I am still focused on the developmental, so I’m not going to hear anything you say, especially if it is delivered poorly.

If the situation calls for positive feedback – give positive feedback and let it go.  Let the individual bask in the moment.  This make take a few tries, especially if they are looking for the oncoming knife.  It might take a few times for them to realize it is not going to be coming.

If the situation calls for developmental feedback, give developmental feedback.  That’s not to say you cannot use positive past examples to create an acknowledgement of effective past performance, but here it is used to restate the goal, not to “butter them up for toasting.”

WE NOW RETURN YOU TO OUR REGULAR PROGRAM…

The only time both positive and developmental feedback should be in the same discussion is during the performance review where it is expected, because you are showing the “highlight reel” of the past period – but you have already discussed these in the more informal feedback conversations.  Again – no surprises.

There’s more to come.  For performance management processes to be effective, leaders have to understand:

• Balance of Expectations
• Conducting Effective Setting Expectation Discussions
• Discussing Changes of Expectations
• Proactive and Reactive Ongoing Coaching
• Evaluation of Performance

John Lake has been a Business Culture and Performance Consultant/Trainer for over 20 years.  JDLake Communications, LLC is designed to help organizations retain the talent they don’t know they are about to lose.

1st in a series

There has been a lot of chatter recently – especially in HR circles – regarding the necessity/effectiveness of Performance Reviews.  Some are suggesting their outright elimination, others are calling them a “necessary evil.”  My thought is “Do you really know what you are talking about?”  Let’s step back a moment and see if we can discover the underlying (root) cause of the discussion to begin with.

My hypothesis is that the problem is based on two different types of CONNECTIONS – practical and personal.  I will address the first one here and the other in a later post.

To begin with, let’s look first at the definition of “review.”  The World English Dictionary defines review (in its verb form) as:

1. to look at or examine again
2. to look back upon

In the Performance Management sense, the Performance Review is just that – a formal discussion that looks back upon all of the informal discussions that have occurred to date.  Which brings us to our first disconnect – the overall process.

Most managers (and HR types) see the Performance Review as an annual (or semi-, tri-, or quarter-annual) exercise with a check box at the end.  They fail to see its intended purpose primarily because the regular informal discussions are either:

• not conducted
• not documented
• just not seen as important

So the more formal discussion becomes a haphazard collection of data (usually just the most recent rather than over the time period) placed in such a manner as to prove a particular point and where that point is on some scale (i.e., does not meet, meets, exceed expectations).  More on that later.

But the biggest practical disconnect is in the understanding of the alignment of the individual’s original performance goals to the organization’s goals.  This alignment needs to be understood by all parties for the expectations to have value.

• The individual’s goals must align with the department goals.  If every individual in the department meets expectations, then the department will meet its expectations.
• The department’s goals must align with the group’s/division’s goals.  If every department in the group/division meets expectations, then the group/division will meet its expectations.
• The group’s/division’s goals must align with the organization’s goals.  If every group/division in the organization meets expectations, then the organization will meet its expectations.
• If the organization meets its expectations, it is well on its way to achieving its strategic priorities and its established vision.

Let me put it in the perspective of the individual.  “I need to know not just WHAT I am expected to do, but WHY it is important – what VALUE am I adding to the process?”  This helps in both my prioritization of tasks (the more value – the higher the priority) but also my engagement (if I know why I am doing something, I am more likely to give more energy to it).

But it also means that this information must travel from the top (where the vision and strategic priorities are created) down into the individual depths of the organization.

What needs to be done there in my next post.

John Lake has been a Business Culture and Performance Consultant/Trainer for over 20 years.  JDLake Communications, LLC is designed to help organizations retain the talent they don’t know they are about to lose.

I regularly receive postings from a blog by Eric Chester called Reviving Work Ethic. There are many good postings regarding this subject – especially in today’s business world.  I was intrigued by Anthony Mok’s guest post, Are Schools Setting the Bar to Advancement Too Low? (click to read)

But what he says is only partially true – at least with US schools of recent years.  I spend time in both the business and education arenas, so there is some experience here.

I don’t know what age bracket Anthony is in (I’m in the 50-60), but his description of school scoring/advancement dates back to my era.

Today, students get ribbons for 10^th place – or even just participating.  There is no “failure” in that they are given an enormous amount of credit for just “trying.”  With self-esteem being the mantra in the classroom for over a decade, and students constantly being told that they are the best, it is difficult for them to process being even “average” in the workplace.  So in the real world, a performance value of “3” (meets expectations) can be emotionally devastating.

And I’m not even going to get started on some of the useless “majors” that institutions of supposedly higher education offer these days – unless “Do you want fries with that?” excites you.

But I digress.

Anthony’s assessment is spot on, and he gives us 3 choices (with my commentary on each):

• Revisit the system of rewards/promotions in our schools – This is the best option in that it better prepares students for what the real world will be expecting of them.  However, you are going to have some “culture wars” to overcome the current practices that have become so engrained in our current educational system.  Today “Failure is not an option” does not imply that we need to prevent failure from happening.  It literally means that the option has been taken off the table completely – so you don’t have to worry about it!

• Create workplace performance management like that of school systems – Only if you want mediocre performers and mediocre performance.  If the school grading/promotion system is working so well that it should be emulated, why are so many business leaders decrying the “workforce readiness” of recent graduates (and we have a blog site called “Reviving Work Ethic”)?

• Completely do away with performance appraisals – Dicey.  An organization is measured on what it does and how it does it.  The old adage “that which gets measured gets done” still applies, because its antithesis is also true – If you don’t measure it, don’t expect it to happen.  You need some form of “tension” (goals, deadlines, etc.) to overcome the inherent inertia.  If your performance management system says “Here are the goals for this (period), and here are the behaviors/competencies we expect you to demonstrate in the process,” you still need some end-of-period evaluation to see if the goals were met and the behaviors were demonstrated – with positive/negative consequences to be applied.  Otherwise nothing will be taken seriously.

While the first option is the best choice, that is going to take a while.  The second option will only exacerbate the problem.  And the third option does not meet shareholder expectations.  They regularly perform organizational performance appraisals with their wallets, so the process is not going to go away any time soon.

So let me add a fourth option.  Sometime during the recruitment/interviewing/on-boarding process someone should take the candidate/new hire aside and say:

“Here is what our performance management system looks like and what you can expect from it – including ‘3’ being ‘OK’.”   I realize your school did not prepare you for this process, so if you are going to have a problem with it, please tell us now.”

OK, that last part will have to be massaged a little bit (not to damage their self-esteem), but you get my drift.

John Lake is owner of JDLake Communications, LLC (www.jdlake.com) – a business culture consulting firm dedicated to helping organizations “retain the talent they don’t know they are about to lose.” For more information about this subject and the concepts of “Whole Business Thinking,” you can contact him at john@jdlake.com.

• Productivity improvements and
• Remaining employees’ already existing knowledge of corporate practices, processes, and “workarounds” to both – something most organizations do not account for.  Businesses forget that the experience of an employee (i.e., learning the system) is what allows them to be more productive.

So additional cut-backs result in now 1 person doing the work of 2 (originally 3), resulting in basically “red-lining” that person’s productivity and engagement engine to the point of breakdown.   They quit.  So now where you originally had 3 people, you now have 0.

Now you are left with looking for:

• a person who can do the work of 3,
• with no previous knowledge of the organization, it’s practices and procedures
• who can “hit the ground running”

NEWSFLASH:  These people either do not exist, or are in such small numbers that demand far exceeds supply and they are priced outside of what most “entry-level” situations are willing to bear.

So we are at an interesting junction where business are saying “Where are all the ‘good hires’?” and a ready, willing, desirous and able (with a little bit of development) workforce is saying “Why won’t somebody hire me?”

Somebody somewhere needs a good reality check.

All the productivity-enhancing technology won’t do a thing if there are not any people using it.  No matter how much you automate it, people are still the life-blood of the enterprise!

This means that businesses are going to have to admit that they need to invest in their people – not just their technology.  And with at least 50% of the workforce looking to “jump ship,” businesses are going to need to start thinking about it NOW!  Investing comes in a variety of forms, including internal relationship-building, and providing meaningful work that adds value to both the business and the employee, and ongoing training.

The Top 3 Reasons People Leave

1. No relationship with the leader
2. Lack of “meaningful” work (no perceived value added)
3. No development opportunity

Which one (or more) is your organization contributing to?

John Lake is owner of JDLake Communications, LLC (www.jdlake.com) – a business culture consulting firm dedicated to helping organizations “retain the talent they don’t know they are about to lose.” For more information about this subject and the concepts of “Whole Business Thinking,” you can contact him at john@jdlake.com.

The article went on to clarify that it was the “unstructured” interview that was a waste of time.  And to that I highly agree.  I had one manager who prided himself on being able to make a selection based on the opening handshake, then used the interview to validate his decision – ignoring the fact that his department had one if the highest attrition rates in the organization!

Any interview that starts out with “So, tell me about yourself.” is destined to be a dud.  As a candidate, you the interviewer are showing me that you have not done any homework and are not taking this process seriously.   I want to get to the meat of the matter, telling you what I have accomplished and how it relates to the success of your company.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am an 18-year disciple of Development Dimensions International’s (DDI’s) Targeted Selection® process.  This highly structured program (when used as it is designed) gives interviewers the support they need to collect and process the information necessary to make a good decision.  The background work produces an interview guide with competency-based questions that are job-related and easy to ask.  You get the opportunity to gather data on the candidate’s skills, behaviors, and motivations – essential to know for those who are looking for a candidate who will stay with the organization once hired. If the skills that are taught in the workshops are used in the real-world interview, the candidate leaves with a feeling of being known to the interviewers in a way that is both professional and personable.  The process of data assimilation/integration and decision-making are structured and legally defensible.  But whether you use Targeted Selection or not, the premise is clear – YOU MUST HAVE A LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE STRUCTURE!

While this may sound like a lot of work, it really is not compared to the cost of a miss-hire or a litigated decision.  But there is one caveat – the process needs to be consistently practiced as it is designed – throughout all parts of the organization.  Any training should be clear and unalterable on this.   I have often told my trainees, “Stick to the knitting on this and I will defend you.  Deviate and you are on your own (good luck.)”

My files are full of both positive and negative examples, but I’ll leave you with one story…

After certifying a team of interviewers in a particular group, they went out to search for a candidate for a certain position.  After a series of candidates, they made their selection and the new employee came on board.  Six months later she was gone, and the team had to start all over again.

Because the process is designed to prevent this scenario from occurring, I asked the manager what happened.  He said, “John, it was not the system.  The process worked beautifully.  All the data we collected on her said we really should not hire her.  But we needed someone really bad, and that is what we got – someone really bad.”

‘Nuf said.

There are basically three types of A-Player:

A1 – The High-Potential

This is what most people think of when they use the term “A-Player.”  They are the type of employee that shows signs of quick growth – one who is “fast track-able.”  They can come in, learn the ins and outs of a position, assess the situations they find themselves in, target solutions, and implement them with minimal assistance.  They are the ones who the organization thinks “vertical” about, and grooms accordingly.

A2 – The Promotable

Another coveted type of employee.  An active part of the succession planning system, they need a little more time than the A1.  Typically this time is spent in “lateral” experiences in other parts of the organization – expanding their sphere of influence, relying on mentors for their development.  Rather than shooting straight up the ladder, they typically use the path around the mountain to get to their “top.”

A3 – The High-Value

Often referred to as the “Job Content Expert,” These people are more focused on increasing their value within their own position or responsibility.  The problem here is that most organizations make the mistake of promoting them into leadership positions.  While they may get training in leadership skills, the Peter Principle kicks in and they fail because they really had no desire for the role in the first place.  They did not want to be a “leader” (i.e., Supervisor, Manager) – they wanted to be the “go-to” person in their field of expertise.  I have known a few who have chosen to “max out” in their pay grade.  They know where their value is, and if they leave, they take a heck of a lot of intellectual capital with them.  They are not concerned, nor have the desire for, the trappings of “leadership.”  Their leadership comes not from a position, but from being recognized for their value to the organization – a foreign concept to many who manage the succession planning process.

However, there may be some A3’s that desire to take on the leadership mantle.  Don’t promote them just because of their technical expertise.  Make sure they have the desire to shift from technical expert to leader.  The skill sets are quite different from each other.  The former get work done on his/her own.  The latter accomplishes goals through others.

B – The Consistent

Regularly ignominiously referred to as “grunts,” these are the workhorses of the organization.  They are a necessary part of organizational life (think “Worker B’s”).  Their career path has a much longer trek, but that is OK with them.  The secret here is to watch out for potential burn-out.  You may have to redeploy them to keep them engaged, but be careful.  They may actually be looking to become A3’s in their particular field.  In fact most A3’s are former B’s who were recognized for their abilities by their leaders and nurtured to become high-value contributors.

The Hidden Problem With A Players

In today’s job market, most companies are looking for/recruiting/poaching  A1’s.  They go after them with gusto and work hard to snag and reel them in.  The problem is that other companies are looking for the same person.  Look at it this way.  If an A1 was not loyal to his/her previous employer, how can you expect them to be loyal to you?  Many of them have a loyalty level equal to the attention span of a ferret on double espresso!  They are looking for the next big thing and if it comes from outside your organization – they are history.

A2’s on the other hand tend to give you a little more time before looking elsewhere.  But they need to know their career path with you.  I know of one such leader who was promised development opportunities.  After a year of this, he started looking elsewhere and landed a job with another organization.  When he turned in his notice, his leader responded, “But we had plans for you.”

“I never saw them,” he replied, “I just heard promises.”

Of A3’s and B’s

Often relegated to the equivalent of organizational  boiler rooms, these employees are mostly ignored – especially in succession planning circles – because they have no “leadership aspirations.”

But their leadership is of a different nature:  Intellectual Capital.  Lose a critical A3 and your project could come to a grinding halt while you scamper to find a capable replacement.  All the mid- and high-level leadership in the world would not be able to quickly replace the loss of one critical A3.

Your B players are where your hidden A3’s reside.  Pay attention to them.  Develop a relationship that shows you what their motivators (and demotivators) are.  Develop a meaningful career path with them.

Who knows – your next VP of Innovation might be today’s B Player.

John Lake has spent over 20 years developing leaders from the internal workforce.  For more information on how to create an organizational culture that uses relationships to develop tomorrow’s leaders, contact JDLake Communications, LLC today.