An appraisal system Carol Bartz can love
 Subscribe to the Three Star Leadership Blog |
| The Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. |
| Follow me on Twitter |
| For weekly tips and resources pointers, check Wally's Three Star Leadership Letter |
| Find out more about having Wally speak to your company or convention. |
| Find out more about Wally's coaching services. |
 |
Last Sunday, the NY Times published a fabulous interview with Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo. Ms Bartz always gives great interviews and this one is no exception. She's savvy, successful and straightforward which usually means she throws out lots of things for others to comment on.
Bob Sutton picked up one whenhe blogged about Bartz' comment that "I also think people should understand that they will learn more from a bad manager than a good manager." In his usual, thorough way, Bob asked if that was really true. Read his post and the comments for more.
I was attracted by the title of the Times piece, "Imagining a World of No Annual Reviews." It sounds like a good thing. Many of us think the current system is broken. Many of us have written about why.
Most of the people who want to abolish the current system want to replace it with another formal system. Carol Bartz says: "I almost would rather ask each employee to tell us if they’ve had a meaningful conversation with their manager this quarter. Yes or no. And if they say no, they ought to have one. I don’t even need to know what it is. But if you viewed it as meaningful, then that’s all that counts."
In the paragraph just before that quote Ms Bartz makes the analogy to dealing with a puppy. She points out that if your puppy pees on the carpet, you don't wait six months to deal with it. You shouldn't wait for that one meaningful conversation for the quarter, either.
I'd love to dismantle the current system. But I don't want to replace it with another formal system that fails the puppy test.
The best appraisals in most organizations are frequent and informal. I've been teaching that to supervisors for decades. It's a core principle in my Working Supervisor's Support Kit. It's based on the way I observed top supervisors work.
To make that happen, we have to realize that routine, mostly informal, performance appraisal is the core work of supervisors at all levels. That means we need to select for people who can do it and train them to do it well. We need to evaluate them on their performance at it. And we need to base rewards on how well they do it.
Boss's Bottom Line
No matter what kind of formal performance appraisal system exists in your organization, your job is to do lots of appraisals of both behavior and performance. Appraisals should be as soon as possible after an event, specific, and helpful.
Some of my previous posts on performance appraisal systems.
Abolish the performance review
Everybody knows the performance appraisal system is broken
Performance management systems that don't perform
What about performance reviews?
Wally's Working Supervisor's Support Kit is a collection of information and tools to help working supervisors do a better job. It's based on what Wally's learned in over twenty years of supervisory skills training. Click here to check it out.
Categories: Supervision,Performance Evaluation
Tags: Performance Evaluation
Wally,
I really like the idea of doing away with performance appraisals and Carol Bartz seems to be a brilliant woman. The puppy test is really good example of the primary ways these performance appraisals are ineffective.
Question: I think no matter how hard people try there is always going to be some type of system in place within these large organizations because the culture is too ingrained. What are your thoughts on a system where the employee evaluates themselves? They could build a weekly or monthly book of work or resume showcasing what they have accomplished. I think people can be their own best critic and it might motivate them in the work environment.
Reply to this
Thanks for the comment and question, Elijah. You may be right about the power of ingrained practice (and bargaining agreements) to keep formal systems around even if they don't work.
I think self-evaluation can be powerful, but not as the only evaluation. We just don't see ourselves clearly enough to have that stand alone.
Reply to this
This is a great blog about Bartz' interview. The title alone lends itself to the notion of an ideal working environment. I would love to not stress for that week leading up to my performance review. I would much rather just have constant and open communication with my manager about the work that I am doing. I also semi-agree with what Elijah said above about having reviews. Although i can be the best critic about my own work, i also know that i would alway be honest about the work have done. However, to do this kind of review with all employees would require an extremely trusting environment, which i dont think actually happens a lot in the real business world. I think that i may be a good jumping off point for managers i still think that there needs to be some kind of formal or informal evulation that reflects outside opinions.
Reply to this
Thanks for those comments, Danielle. Your comments about stressing out the week before your performance review reminded me what we found when we compared the average time supervisors in one organization spent on that review with the time that out top supervisors spent.
The average was in the area of ten minutes. I'm doing this from memory so I may not be quite right, but I'm in the ballpark. The top supervisors spent more than half an hour on each review.
The other difference was what they talked about. Most supervisors discussed the events of the prior six months. The organization held reviews every six months. But the top supervisors talked about what would happen in the next six months.
Reply to this
I really enjoyed this post. I feel like it is a very widely spoken about topic, but it doesn't seem like organizations ever address the issue. I would much rather have informal meetings more often with my supervisor so I know how I can improve as soon as possible. I think one of the things that confuses me most about performance appraisals is that most employees seem to dread receiving them and most supervisors also dread giving them out. So if no one really looks forward to the performance appraisal then how come everyone still uses them? It just seems weird to me that most organizations haven't gone to alternatives to communicate performance issues.
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think the dread on both sides is the dread of a surprise and possible confrontation. On the boss's side, you can add the fact that he or she probably has no training in how to deal with such a confrontation.
As for "why do we still do it?" It's only lately that we've started being critical of the way the system works. From the late 1930s through the 1970s, the movement was to get companies who did no appraisal at all to adopt a formal appraisal system. In the mid-sixties the Harvard Business Review carried an article by GE HR folks about their process and how it worked and didn't.
I keep hoping that we've just experienced the early stages of performance appraisal development and that we'll move on to some things I mentioned in the blog.
Reply to this
I find it true, that there is always more written about what not to do rather than how to do good in response to the comment on learning more from bad managers. At least it is easy to see what you need to improve on. Communication with your supervisor is very important, a meaningful one is even better and how many of those do we get?
Reply to this
My humble view is that you meaningful conversations should be frequent. By "meaningful" I don't mean "big deal." It's often the meaningful little conversations that keep big deals from happening.
Reply to this
Hi Wally,
As a manager, I try and give my team members feedback every time they complete a project. It’s not always possible, but I try to make time to do that once we wind down one project and before we get too ramped up on the next project. My people seem to like it—not surprisingly, they like it more when the feedback is positive, which it almost always is (I have a great team of people). I can also see the benefit of frequent feedback from the perspective of it making it easier to deal with problem employees, because you get the notice that behavior needs to change out there right away, just like the carpet wetting puppy. And of course, delivering praise closer to the event in question means both manager and employee have a better recall of events and can more accurately describe what went well.
The problem for me, is that work does not always allow me to sit down with my folks for an after project post-mortem, even if I really want to. Sometimes there isn’t time. And, if that’s true when good things happen, it will also be true after negative experiences. So how do you make time to do this and make sure that the experience is both meaningful for the employee and you and that it covers everything that you, as a manager, feels needs to be explored? This is something I struggle with, and I think that, if we did not have this time issue to contend with, a lot of managers would be happy to use this system instead of the traditional system.
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing that, Patrick. I don't know, but I suspect, that you're also talking to your people during the project. With project management I find there tend to be more formal reviews than there are in most supervisory situations. The nature of project management makes that both natural and desirable.
As for the after-action critique, if you were a coaching client, I'd ask you to come up with ways to make sure you do them. If you can, as I'm sure you know from your comments, then there's lots of good productive learning and downstream performance improvement. I'd push to see if the critique could move up the priority list. I find that usually can happen if the larger organizational culture sees the critique as valuable, otherwise, most American companies see "moving on" as the more important value.
Reply to this
This is an important topic and thanks for writing about it Wally. Amongst the many ideas to fix the process, I like the idea that reviews for performance and compensation should be separate, with the former much more frequent and informal.
Reply to this
Thanks for adding that. I presume you mean "separate events" and not "separated from each other." I like the promise of performance-based pay systems at all levels of the organization.
Reply to this
Wally,
She said, "I almost would rather ask each employee to tell us if they’ve had a meaningful conversation with their manager this quarter. Yes or no. And if they say no, they ought to have one.
Wow! Every quarter! How about at least once a week?
I've only had experience with a small staff of 30 people and 20 outside consultants but with the 30 people we had short (15 minutes, max.) group conversations once week to keep track.
I met with my dept heads once-a-week for less than 1 hr. on the topics of "What's working well?" What needs improvement?" What are we missing?"
I work with a Co. that has 50 in-office staff. They gather once-a-day for a daily check-in of 9.5 minutes. Big impact with brief effort.
My operating principle is "perf. man." is daily, weekly, ongoing. Like any relationship, meaningful contact is key to staying clearly on track.
I think the high performers appreciate it, the "middles" move up in performance , or out, the "lows" can't stand the heat and move out voluntarily.
And, just as important, it's more fun.
Dr. jim sellner, PhD.,DipC.
Reply to this
That's helpful, Jim, thanks for adding it to the conversation. I was addressing the performance/behavior meetings that happen with individuals face-to-face. They happen in a larger structure. What I like about the one you define is the frequent checking in and the results you describe match what I've observed in organizations with frequent "check-ins" as part of the way they work.
Reply to this
Having done "performance reviews" for years...they do not add value. Performance reviews are rearview mirror views of what happened versus a tool to keep team members aligned with the agreed upon roadmap, making sure their initiatives align with the teams overall objectives.
Do away with performance management and implement "execution management". Since doing this with one of my accounts we have seen a dramatic increase in performance, efficiency and morale.
The system we implemented to support execution management was Keyne link
Mark Allen Roberts
Reply to this
Couldn't the same good idea be introduced in a way that doesn't hint that annual reviews are unnecessary? Imagine the managers scanning these "no more annual reviews!" articles and thinking, "Aha! I always did think those were a waste of time. No more of that namby pamby feedback stuff for my team any more!" Feedback once a quarter would be wonderful, but why not keep once a year as a bare minimum for managers who otherwise wouldn't do it at all?
Reply to this
I think that's a good point and I don't know the answer. I see this as two connected issues.
First, there's the issue of what supervisors are supposed to do. If we improve the way we select, train, support, and evaluate supervisors, they will do more of the informal reviews. As I point out in the Working Supervisor's Support Kit, when that happens, a lot of the issues with the annual performance review system go away.
The other issue is the embedded character of the review system itself. It's become so much a part of business culture that it's highly unlikely that it will change without some strong pressure. It's part of policy manuals, business courses and much more.
Reply to this
Wally,
I don't like Performance Evaluations for may reasons. I also don't think it is a good idea to take a yearly system to a quarterly system. It may seemingly work for about the first year until employees realize what is happening. Yes, if the puppy pees inside you have to deal with it then. Why would a manager wait to discuss mistakes or unfavorable behavior with an employee until their quarterly meeting when that behavior can be detrimental to the company?
Reply to this
Thanks for adding your voice, Kyle. You ask: "Why would a manager wait …"
The answer, at least from sessions I've had with managers who do that, is that they don't decide to put it off until the next big review. They really mean to do it right away. But, since most managers have received ZERO training in how to have the conversation, they find little excuses to do it "later" and then "tomorrow." Then something comes up and they put it off again.
The good news is that once a manager understands what he or she is doing and what impact it has and after he or she has learned some technique for talking to team members about performance and behavior, things usually get better.
Reply to this
I think that annual performance reviews ARE unnecessary and may even be harmful. Think about it: they're largely subjective and they're typcially not even linked to organizational objectives. They usually serve as an indication of a person's popularity with and/or likeability by the manager, and if the manager doesn't like the reviewee, the poor soul gets a bad rating.
Why not instead tie a person's performance to what the organization REALLY cares about: its strategic plan? After all, why do companies even have employees, anyway? To help get the company where it needs to go. So, to this end, why don't we instead concentrate on a management system that helps a company track the execution of its strategic plan by its employees? If an employee knows where the company is going, knows how his/her activities fit into that plan, knows what's specifically expected of him/her towards that end, and gets regular feedback about all of it, isn't that a better way of managing employee performance?
Strategy execution management is a concept that's being talked about more and more these days, and companies are beginning to realize that that's the key to organizational success. Coming up with a strategic plan is not enough; it must be executed. This sounds like one of those "duh!" statements, but too many organizations don't actually follow through on the strategic plan.
What better way to manage the performance of employees than to manage their performance based upon their role in the company's strategic plan, which, at its essence, is why employees are hired in the first place?
To learn more about strategy execution management, feel free to browse my website at www.keyneinsight.com. It's one of my hot buttons.
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Kelly. I think that what you describe may be a good thing for an entire corporation, especially one with problems aligning performance and behavior with strategic intent. But it sounds to me like you're suggesting we build a whole new house, when I think we can make a big change by landscaping the front yard and painting the porch.
Reply to this
I agree with many points made in your blog, Wally. "Performance reviews" made by managers must be informal and frequent. These reviews will continue to be critically flawed if the managers do not have a close professional relationship with their employees. I'm not saying they should be micro-managing, but they should always be available and have an open line of communication to be a little more in-touch with everyone.
Reply to this
Thanks for the insight, Jeff. Touching base frequently with team members gives you the opportunity to have conversations. Some of the conversations will be about performance and some will not.
Micromanaging is something different, at least for me. It's close supervision that's inappropriate given a team member's ability and prior performance.
Reply to this
What could replace the annual/formal performance review with frequent feedback a la the puppy approach?
Strategic recognition encourages peers and managers to frequently and, critically, in a timely way acknowledge efforts and achievements that demonstrate the company values in contribution to strategic objectives.
These “recognition assessments” and kudos can then be used as a type of performance review on the strengths (John has been recognized repeatedly for innovation) and even weaknesses (but John has been recognized only once for teamwork) as potential areas of improvement. This presents a much more rounded view of an employee’s contributions of which managers may not even be aware.
Moreover, since such a strategic recognition program is deployed company-wide, data can be gathered and used to benchmark an individual’s performance and demonstration of values in their work against direct peers, team members, the division and even the company as a whole.
More on the problems with annual performance reviews here: http://globoforce.blogspot.com/2009/09/evaluating-performance-appraisals.html
Reply to this
Good stuff, Derek. Thanks for sharing it. What you describe seems something like the ESQi that Enterprise Rent-a-Car uses to evaluate branch managers.
Reply to this
Perhaps in a sense it's like ESQi, but from what I understand, that is based on what customers think of Enterprise employee performance, specifically on quality of service.
What I'm talking about is fellow employees -- at all levels -- being able to offer positive feedback at any time to any other colleague (up and down the chain).
You make a good point, though. Our customer Fairmont Hotels does include a component in their recognition program that allows customers to also recognize employees for performance.
Reply to this
You're right about the ESQi. It's a measure of customer service and used to evaluate branch managers performance and promotability. I thought the similarities were simplicity of both data gathering and reporting and the use of a common measure across the company.
Reply to this
Here's the thing. In my experience one of the 'real' (as opposed to stated) reasons for performance reviews is that neither managers nor their staff know how to have proper conversations. They lack the capability and confidence to treat each other with respect and to enter into dialogue. So they put a system in instead.
Reply to this
Thanks for the comment, John. Historically, performance appraisal systems were introduced in civil service to provide some basis for comparison when it came time for promotions or layoffs.
Reply to this
An excellent subject folks. Between you all I have gleened some most valuable information. I work for a company with approx 140 staff, of these there are 40 light engineering members, with 8 of these being "Team Leaders". Until recently we held Appraisals on a yearly basis, the Team Leaders have now been "threatened" with Disciplinary Action for non-performance (we achieve a very high percentage of the time)and indeed, have been made subject to a now quarterly appraisal system, but only for us Team Leaders. We have a bonus scheme which we hit consistently, and each Team Leader has an excellent set of members within their teams. Several of us have pointed out to our Autocratic Ops Mngr just how "negative" this action could be, and in itself brings the Team Leaders into the realm of poor morale, when thus far we have been nothing but positive. With all your professional experiences between you, how would you perceive this action. We are confused ! But only want to do a great job for our company, as has always been the case. The current round of appraisals are being met by our team members as "secretive" as we are obliged to maintain total confidentiallity, although we each know the dialogue expressed in these meetings is more "general" than "classified" material. I/We only wish to understand what could be happening in our Ops Managers mind, rather cause any ill feeling on the shop floor which would otherwise create a "them" and "us" situation, which we have always wished to avoid.
Many thanks to you all again for a most intuitive set of excellent feedback, I have learnt much already from you all.
Reply to this
Thanks for sharing your situation. I'm glad you picked up some things you can use and I hope some of our commenters can add tips to make things better.
Reply to this
Strategy execution management is a concept that's being talked about more and more these days, and companies are beginning to realize that that's the key to organizational success. Coming up with a strategic plan is not enough; it must be executed. This sounds like one of those "duh!" statements, but too many organizations don't actually follow through on the strategic plan.
Reply to this