How You Could Manage Performance Better

We discussed in the first part of this process that all organizations need to manage the performance of their employees at all levels. And, at the individual contributor level, performance management is critical.

That was the 'why.' Now let's discuss 'how.'

Performance management is a process. It is often confused with the outcome -- a rating or narrative review used in conjunction with an organizational decision such as incentive pay or promotions, or, as a rationale for developmental/corrective/punitive actions. Thus, it is a high-stakes process with multiple potential consequences for both the individual and the organization.

In many ways, performance management is like managing tree growth. As in the picture above, taking on a new hire -- a sapling -- means you need to find the right place for it, set it up for success, tend to it. And sometimes the performance management process means you remove longer-tenured trees that have lost their vitality or their role in your plan. Doing it fairly means doing it thoughtfully and decisively.

Here is how Brendan recently wrote about performance management:

The ideal plan moves from pretty specific for the first week or so to rather vague on detail but clear on metrics by the end. The goal is to have your new hire up to speed and productive at the end of 90 days, but without so much just hoping that it works out, or expecting them to figure this all out for themselves. Could they figure it all out for themselves? Probably, but what do you gain by making them do that? You certainly lose the chance to set them up for success, to start them off on the right foot, to really try them out for that 90 days. Is it worth the trouble to put together such a plan? We hope that the answer is "yes" because putting it together is pretty easy once you are in the talent-based mindset. If you can't easily put together a 90 day plan for a new hire then perhaps you need to figure out why that isn't easy. After all, you should know what you want this new hire to do and what resources you have to help and what metrics you expect them to meet once they are up to speed, don't you?

Two key pieces of tried & true advice right off: give the person at any level a 90-day plan (look, if 120 days or 60 days or whatever is better, fine -- but do it). Second, a significant part of performance management process success is regular communication about performance with your direct report. "Regular" is not annually, or semi-annually. Regular means monthly or bi-weekly. If you don't make time for it, you don't value it.

We cannot discuss performance management without discussing disagreements. Two thoughts.

First, you and your direct report will disagree about progress, how things are going, what needs to change, etc. You get to be "right" because you're the boss. But you may only be 80% right. Even if you're 90% right, you're still a little bit wrong. Keep that in mind because your direct report will keep it in mind.

Second, managing conflict is an extraordinarily important function as a leader. No matter what, you need to get better at it and it will pay off for you and your career.

Performance management doesn't have to be fancy or follow some guru's proprietary process. In fact, keep it transparent and simple. Align your performance management system with your KPIs or core competencies so that decisions are job-related and have a business necessity. Consistent scheduled reviews create process fairness, which is key for all human-centered endeavors. As an individual contributor, get in front of your boss on a regular basis to get feedback that you can act on. Maintain active involvement in the enterprise-wide performance management process so that there are no 'hard conversations' about why so many people are "over-rated" at bonus time.

Another reason to focus on the process management part of performance management is that you are making ratings that are loaded with biases. That's right, you. Depending on which research report you read, about 40% of supervisor performance ratings made by people just like you reflect factors not related to performance: personal dislikes/likes, biases, lack of attention, etc. That happens because you're likely making an annual rating and you remember highs/lows or "that time when" or something else unrelated to someone's consistent performance over time. (Or maybe you just dislike the person.)

You could manage performance better. All managers think they "know what it takes" -- but you can't honestly believe that if you don't create the right environments for thriving.

Just like with trees.

Ask us how you could manage performance better.