Leadership success is an up front and personal, face to face process. I came across an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that seems to take an opposing view on leadership success.
The opposite success view was in an article by Michael Totty in the Business Solutions Column, and entitled The Dreaded Performance Review. The article began, “Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a computer program that could remove some of the hassle of the annual employee performance review?...This kind of help is a lot closer than many managers realize.”
In my opinion, this type of software will not result in performance evaluation success; just the opposite in fact...
Performance review success is driven by open, honest dialogue between a manager and the people who report to him or her. In fairness to Mr. Totty, he throws in a quote from James Hollincheck, a VP at Gartner Inc., a computer program “doesn’t replace the interaction between the manager and employee”. He then spends the next 12 paragraphs explaining how newly available software makes it easier to track performance appraisal completion, provide words a manager can use to evaluate an individual’s performance and do away with lots of paper.
This is all well and good. But will it lead to performance review success? I doubt it. Performance review success is dependent on open, honest dialogue between a leader and his or her people. From what I can tell – and I’ve seen this type of software at work in some of my client companies, performance appraisal software makes the process more mechanical – and less successful.
Success in performance evaluations comes from good, old fashioned dialogue. Performance evaluation software is oriented to ensuring that reviews happen – not if they are successful.
I agree that it is important to track the number and percentage of reviews that are completed. However, tracking review completion rates, doesn’t ensure the success of the individual reviews. In fact, performance review software may result in less than successful reviews, because the process will become overly mechanized and sanitized.
For example, in the article, Mr. Totty gives the following example:
- “An executive might need to assess one of the supervisors in her division on ‘managerial courage’. Using performance management software, she can click on a coaching link that suggests ways to explain her assessment, such as, ‘speaks his/her mind; challenges but knows when to stop’, or ‘candid, often blunt; realistic, but can be heavy handed’.
And this is a step forward? Not in my opinion.
First of all, “managerial courage” is a trait. Successful performance appraisals are not about traits, they are about success or lack of success in achieving results. Second, when reviewers have five pre written phrases to describe success or lack of success, they tend use those five phrases verbatim. Therefore, employee reviews tend to sound as if they are generated by an expert system – not a human.
Success in the performance evaluation process begins with a mutual understanding of what a leader expects of an employee. Success metrics – deadlines, sales, budgets – define these expectations. At the end of the performance period, leaders and employees should have a discussion in which they jointly agree on the success or lack of success, the employee had in meeting these expectations.
Leaders should provide concrete examples of what employees did to explain their performance assessment. Employees should have the opportunity to present their side of things. Jointly, they should choose things on which the employee will work to ensure his or her continuing success in the next performance period. When dialogues like this happen, the performance evaluation process – automated or not – is a success.
Success in performance appraisals is elusive. In my experience, the more automated and regimented a system, the chance of success. Worse yet, automated systems may delude a company into thinking that it has a successful performance evaluation in place and working. However, merely knowing that 95% of all appraisals were successfully completed on time only begins to tell the story. The important success factor for a performance evaluation system should be the quality of the discussions. From what I’ve seen, performance evaluation software isn’t able to measure that yet.
The common sense point here: if you want to ensure the success of your performance management system, focus more on helping leaders develop the ability and willingness to have open, meaningful dialogues with the people who report to them, not on a computer system that tracks the completion rate of performance reviews.
That’s it for today. Thanks for reading. Log on to my website www.BudBilanich.com for more leadership common sense. Check out my other blog www.CareerSuperStar.com for common sense advice on becoming the life and career star you are meant to be.
I’ll see you around the web, and at Alex’s Lemonade Stand.
Bud
PS: Speaking of Alex’s Lemonade Stand – my fundraising page is still open. Please go to www.FirstGiving.com/TheCommonSenseGuy to read Alex’s inspiring story and to donate if you can.
Comments