I was recently asked to participate in defining a new performance management process for a group I work with. In the first couple of meetings, we had a free ranging, and often emotional discussion around what is not working in the current process, and what structure would support the implementation of a good process. I for one find that performance management is often focused on treating everyone the same, when we all know we are each different.
After the first couple of meetings, I began to mull over performance appraisals, and what about them doesn't work. One of my strengths is that I see patterns in most things in life, and use these to identify frameworks. If we can identify and put a name to something, it is much easier for us to address it. So as a recent meeting started, I began to jot some notes about how performance feedback works in the real world. The following table is the draft I presented to the team, and it was accepted. I may make modifications to it, but for now, this is my framework for understanding performance feedback.
In most organizations, there are three types of feedback. Impromptu is immediate. The reason for the feedback is fresh, usually based on an interaction in a meeting or as part of an initiative. Threshold-Driven is based on feedback at intervals during or after a project. This is a triggered event, and can be based on the size, complexity, or duration of a project. It can also be based on a certain number of issues surfaced during a project. Periodic performance feedback is generally used to identify individual performance trends, and is typically set to occur at certain times of the year. It is usually conducted to document performance for the human resources function, and to allow the person being evaluated to agree, rebut, or modify their approach to completing their work in the next rating period.
Source defines how feedback is initiated. Feedback can be unsolicited, meaning that the person receiving the feedback hasn't asked for it. The feedback is coming anyway. This is usually precipitated by an event, and can be positive or constructive. Solicited feedback is when the person being evaluated, their performance manager, or human resources requests feedback.
Feedback is then provided through a Channel. Direct feedback is when the person being evaluated receives the feedback directly from the person providing it, and they have an opportunity to contextualize the feedback and discuss it. Indirect feedback is when a colleague provides feedback to the individual's boss or colleague. This feedback is usually viewed as under-handed when the feedback is derogatory.
The above table is mix-and-match, meaning that feedback can be defined by selecting any one value from each column. Periodic reviews may have a mix of Source and Channel, but each instance of feedback is defined by one value from each column. Love it, hate it, or disagree with me, (in the comments section please) but this is how feedback occurs in an organization. Does your organization differ from this framework?
My most formative professional experience in life is derived from my 23 years of service in the Army Reserve. When I first joined, all performance reviews (periodic) were graded as exemplary. If you received anything less than exemplary, your career was over. In the late '80s, the Army changed how the evaluations were conducted, and after a few review cycles, the process became more equitable, and people could use their evaluations to work on improving their performance. Leaders could use the performance feedback to determine order of merit.
The Army utilizes an After Action Review (AAR) process that is focused on fixing issues that arise during and after missions. These are threshold or event driven feedback processes. In these AARs, issues are addressed in the open, and people who caused the issues learned that it was better to learn from their colleagues in the open, than to have them complain behind your back. Everyone shared in the success or failure of a mission, and as a result, the meetings are very productive. These AARs address issues, not people. But all missions and projects are executed by people, and people learn to change their performance for the good of the team. Many issues raised in these meetings allow units to redefine processes and workflow.
When looking at organizational maturity, my observation is that an immature organization (this has nothing to do with workplace wedgies, it means they don't have stable processes) has primarily impromptu, unsolicited, indirect feedback as their primary performance management system. This supports a dysfunctional culture, and breeds a damaging political climate. If Harry doesn't like what Fred did, Harry goes to Fred's boss Mary to provide the feedback. Fred may or may not ever receive that feedback, and many times if he receives the feedback, he knows that Harry provided it, and workplace trust takes a hit. Or Mary takes the comments as facts, and modifies her view of the Fred (or of Harry), causing Fred to be treated differently, without him knowing why. Without trust, the culture changes, and dysfunctional habits grow exponentially.
I observed a fantastic method for shutting down the impromptu, unsolicited, indirect feedback. Several years ago while managing projects, I was providing impromptu, unsolicited, indirect feedback (okay, I was complaining) to a new department head about a site director from a different office who often monopolized my time. She looked at me thoughtfully, and asked "when you said this to 'name withheld', how did he react?". I was stopped dead in my tracks, and learned that if I couldn't provide feedback directly to the person who needs the feedback, then the problem is mine, not the other person's. I added this to my management toolkit, and have pulled it out many times when confronted by someone complaining about someone else. I've even offered up this tool to others who are facing this challenge. Try it, you will like it.
As an organization matures, it will usually adopt a periodic, solicited, indirect process. A process of this type provides the centralized human resources function with what they perceive as a fair and equitable way to gather and analyze feedback. The data generated is used to create nice colorful bell curves for leadership to place in PowerPoint presentations. Periodic feedback is great, but feedback must be timely to be effective. Also, in order for people to maintain anonymity, much of the feedback lacks context. If the feedback lacks context, it is generally not actionable.
Organizations which implement only periodic performance feedback systems may have a hard time getting people to learn from the experience, and can create morale issues. Periodic reviews allow people to save up their constructive criticism for a point in time, and by saving it up, they deprive the person being evaluated of the opportunity to improve their performance when the issue occurs. As the only mechanism for feedback, the periodic review falls short in many areas. This can be said of utilizing any one performance feedback system as the only system.
It is my strong belief that the best way to improve performance is to encourage a culture that appreciates impromptu, unsolicited, direct feedback as its primary way for a person to evolve in their role. To implement this, both the person providing feedback, and the receiver must leave their egos out of the discussion. The feedback must be impersonal, factual, and clearly state the impact the issue had on the team. The person receiving this must appreciate that the person providing the feedback is simply trying to improve processes, or address an issue, and it isn't personal. If they disagree with the feedback, they must be capable of disagreeing without damaging trust (see "P.S." at the bottom).
As humans, we should have the opportunity and desire to continuously improve. This is where the direct conversations with colleagues becomes valuable. Adding periodic reviews captures performance trends, and should highlight areas of strength, and areas of improvement - that the person is already aware of from the direct conversations with their colleagues.
Moving to an open environment where people are willing to have the difficult conversations isn't an easy cultural shift. But as I stated up front in this post, once we can put a name to something, addressing it becomes much easier. What is your preferred method of receiving feedback? What is the worst way you received feedback?
P.S. - None of the above addresses what is probably the most challenging issue to address in performance feedback systems, which is the quality of the comments in a review. I will address quality of the feedback in a future blog.
After the first couple of meetings, I began to mull over performance appraisals, and what about them doesn't work. One of my strengths is that I see patterns in most things in life, and use these to identify frameworks. If we can identify and put a name to something, it is much easier for us to address it. So as a recent meeting started, I began to jot some notes about how performance feedback works in the real world. The following table is the draft I presented to the team, and it was accepted. I may make modifications to it, but for now, this is my framework for understanding performance feedback.
Source defines how feedback is initiated. Feedback can be unsolicited, meaning that the person receiving the feedback hasn't asked for it. The feedback is coming anyway. This is usually precipitated by an event, and can be positive or constructive. Solicited feedback is when the person being evaluated, their performance manager, or human resources requests feedback.
Feedback is then provided through a Channel. Direct feedback is when the person being evaluated receives the feedback directly from the person providing it, and they have an opportunity to contextualize the feedback and discuss it. Indirect feedback is when a colleague provides feedback to the individual's boss or colleague. This feedback is usually viewed as under-handed when the feedback is derogatory.
The above table is mix-and-match, meaning that feedback can be defined by selecting any one value from each column. Periodic reviews may have a mix of Source and Channel, but each instance of feedback is defined by one value from each column. Love it, hate it, or disagree with me, (in the comments section please) but this is how feedback occurs in an organization. Does your organization differ from this framework?
My most formative professional experience in life is derived from my 23 years of service in the Army Reserve. When I first joined, all performance reviews (periodic) were graded as exemplary. If you received anything less than exemplary, your career was over. In the late '80s, the Army changed how the evaluations were conducted, and after a few review cycles, the process became more equitable, and people could use their evaluations to work on improving their performance. Leaders could use the performance feedback to determine order of merit.
The Army utilizes an After Action Review (AAR) process that is focused on fixing issues that arise during and after missions. These are threshold or event driven feedback processes. In these AARs, issues are addressed in the open, and people who caused the issues learned that it was better to learn from their colleagues in the open, than to have them complain behind your back. Everyone shared in the success or failure of a mission, and as a result, the meetings are very productive. These AARs address issues, not people. But all missions and projects are executed by people, and people learn to change their performance for the good of the team. Many issues raised in these meetings allow units to redefine processes and workflow.
I observed a fantastic method for shutting down the impromptu, unsolicited, indirect feedback. Several years ago while managing projects, I was providing impromptu, unsolicited, indirect feedback (okay, I was complaining) to a new department head about a site director from a different office who often monopolized my time. She looked at me thoughtfully, and asked "when you said this to 'name withheld', how did he react?". I was stopped dead in my tracks, and learned that if I couldn't provide feedback directly to the person who needs the feedback, then the problem is mine, not the other person's. I added this to my management toolkit, and have pulled it out many times when confronted by someone complaining about someone else. I've even offered up this tool to others who are facing this challenge. Try it, you will like it.
Organizations which implement only periodic performance feedback systems may have a hard time getting people to learn from the experience, and can create morale issues. Periodic reviews allow people to save up their constructive criticism for a point in time, and by saving it up, they deprive the person being evaluated of the opportunity to improve their performance when the issue occurs. As the only mechanism for feedback, the periodic review falls short in many areas. This can be said of utilizing any one performance feedback system as the only system.
As humans, we should have the opportunity and desire to continuously improve. This is where the direct conversations with colleagues becomes valuable. Adding periodic reviews captures performance trends, and should highlight areas of strength, and areas of improvement - that the person is already aware of from the direct conversations with their colleagues.
Moving to an open environment where people are willing to have the difficult conversations isn't an easy cultural shift. But as I stated up front in this post, once we can put a name to something, addressing it becomes much easier. What is your preferred method of receiving feedback? What is the worst way you received feedback?
P.S. - None of the above addresses what is probably the most challenging issue to address in performance feedback systems, which is the quality of the comments in a review. I will address quality of the feedback in a future blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.