OR Poor Annual Performance Reviews – yet another reason companies lose the best and brightest from the previously mentioned Forbes article. In most cases I have observed, the performance review is a token, more lip service to a consultant’s recommendation or a buzzword, or what the CEO heard at a conference (the most noxious case of everybody’s doing it). The way it gets played out is simply another checkbox in the corporate year. The results are meaningless, and the loss of productive time is substantial. Meanwhile, who gets rewarded? The dolt. Their performance is mediocre at best, but the gutless manager will avoid the work to improve performance and avoid hurting feelings by giving a better-than-average score. Who gets hurt? The real performers and producers. Reason? The dolt just got an above-average score, now what to give the star? There is not much room in the top 40%, especially if the scale is 1 to 5. So, the star gets the same score or only slightly higher than the dolt.
Management is a set of processes, just as Project or Change Management is a set of processes. Point is management processes supersede all other processes, yet are the most neglected. Conducting a performance review is the culmination of a long-term process of having a stated strategy, clear objectives, a means of measuring the objectives, and high relational involvement between the reviewer and the reviewee. Neglect any step in the process and the result is like building a sand castle when the tide is rolling in.
In one management situation I was in, where there was low morale, high turnover, poor productivity, etc., etc. I used an idea that admittedly is not original to me. The organization had a great strategy statement, and clear objectives, but was flailing in execution. I sat down with each of my staff (individually) and had a conversation. We began with the question: “What are the activities and attitudes expected to do your job?” When I had a good list (yes, I prompted a little, but by asking questions) I then asked the next question: “What would a poor performer do?” Then, “What would an above-average performer do?” The end result was a three-tier set of what are now considered key performance indicators.
Over the next year, we met once a quarter to discuss (individually!) performance. Each conversation began with “How do you think you are performing to these standards?” over time, the staff learned they were in a safe environment, to be honest, and that I was not going to arbitrarily judge them on how I felt that day, or pass some subjective quip off as their performance quality. Those that had items in the poor performer category also had a corresponding discussion on how they intended to adjust performance in the coming quarter. Those who exhibited above-average actions and attitudes were commended and encouraged.
End result? Obvious improvement. Execution of strategy and objectives improved. Customers took notice and begin to commend the staff personally and to organizational leadership. With my staff, no one ever had to have the poor performer discussion more than once, for the standards were in their own words. Overall, we began to rewrite the above-average standards to an even higher level, and that adjustment came at the recommendation of the staff, come performance review time, I had four sets of notes for each staff member that indicated where they stood and without exception, they were amazed at how far they had come in just a year’s time.
I tell this to demonstrate that management is a process, even if a simple one at times. I happen to feel that if an organization would take the time to apply careful thought to the performance review, the results would be outstanding.