Do you even need performance management?
Each and every one a delicate flower.
Done well, performance management isn’t about policing one-on-one conversations, having a shiny technology tool or even the most clear and efficient process. Those are important enablers, but the main objective is making sure all the work being done creates impact in line with the purpose and goals of the organisation, and achieved in ways that uphold the values and culture of that organisation.
What you need:
Make sure you have a clear definition of what your organisation is there to do. That’s the only way that you can align people behind it.
Get clear on the acceptable behaviours, values you stand for and how you want to do business.
Understand what your people currently think or feel about your mission and your culture. The baseline establishes how much work might need to be done. In turn this shapes how prescriptive and involved your performance management process may need to be to get the results you want.
If any of these are unclear, you will need to get the executive team together to agree, take stock of the current target attainment via existing data, and survey or talk to staff to understand current sentiment. Some may think this is a lot of work for a performance process, but it’s actually the work you need as the foundation for your organisation to function effectively.
But what about the mechanics of ‘performance management’?
Under every evolution, revolutionary approach and reimagined framework are the same core tenets: setting clear expectations of what needs to be accomplished (1), checking in on progress (2), taking stock of what has been achieved and giving reward or recognition commensurate with that achievement (3). Because we have all experienced it in some shape or form, there are a multitude of perspectives and myths on whether it is needed and what it should look like.
MYTH 1: We don’t need ratings
Typically a perspective arrived at because being rated makes people (anyone) feel uncomfortable. Being measured or assessed gives PTSD flashbacks of school, and it can be confronting to both tell or be told that what you have given all year is not up to scratch. However getting rid of the rating scale doesn’t mean that assessment isn’t made, it’s just been made less transparent, hidden behind a wall of text that provides no understanding for the individual (4). You also need quantitative data to support decision making (5) and ensure that hard messages aren’t avoided (6).
MYTH 2: Simple means easy
Leaders and managers just want a simple tool/form/system - code for doesn’t take any time or effort. Without being given the appropriate amount of thought as to what you are trying to achieve by using performance management, how it fits into the flow of work for your specific organisation, how it will be received and how the data will be used you could create something simple (ie off the shelf) but almost certainly a meaningless waste of time. To arrive at that streamlined yet impactful approach you require investigation up front to design the right solution. That upstream work isn’t the most noticeable or the most glamorous, but this is what makes the difference (7).
MYTH 3: It takes away from time making money
It is 100% true that setting expectations, giving feedback and developing skills in others takes time. But if you have created your system properly, this clarity helps drive your organisation to reach your goals more efficiently and effectively with your resources. So if one of your goals is to make more money, this is the framework to do it (8, 9).
MYTH 4: It’s all about tasks, no behaviours
Goals about revenue, about impact, about efficiency are all strong focus areas. They need to be covered. But what happens when you only focus on these? Let me tell you about a team doing all the right things - “hitting it out of the park”. “Kicking goals”. “Finishing first”. Temporarily. Until their individual motivation couldn’t withstand the one-upmanship, the subtle bullying and overt arrogance from the ‘rainmaker’. And neither could the clients. How you go about achieving the goal makes the most difference in impact (10, 11).
Further reading
1 Locke, Edwin & Latham, Gary. (1991). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. The Academy of Management Review. 16. 10.2307/258875.
2 Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P., Pontin, E., Sheeran, P., Acland, A., & Podlogar, M. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198–229. doi.org
3 Kim, J., & Kim, Y. (2020). Well done! Effects of positive feedback on perceived self-efficacy, flow, and performance in a subsequent task. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1008. doi.org
4 Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. doi.org
5 Schiemann, W. A. (2014). From data to sentiment to action: The evolution of organizational analytics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(4), 515–521. doi.org
6 Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The MUM effect. Sociometry, 33(3), 253–263. doi.org
7 Heath, D. (2020). Upstream: The quest to solve problems before they happen. Avid Reader Press
8 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. doi.org
9 Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. doi.org
10 Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The relationship among emotional intelligence, task performance, and contextual performance. Human Performance, 19(4), 403–419. doi.org
11 McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for "intelligence." American Psychologist, 28(1), 1–14. doi.org