Engage to Get Engagement: Part 3

Performance Reviews

This is not an exaggeration.

Not long ago, I attended a conference in New York city with hundreds of start-up business owners. They came from across the country. The hosts scheduled plenty of 15-minute breaks so we could network and learn from each other. Everyone wanted to give their start-up elevator pitch and get feedback on how well they did.

Not me.

I was there to learn how people felt about a certain topic: performance reviews. After listening to others give their elevator pitch and get feedback, people would ask me, “So, what are you building?” And instead of giving my elevator pitch, I would ask, “Have you ever received a performance review?” Even though they were caught off guard with a question compared to a pitch, most responders never needed a second prompt – they just dove into telling me about their awful experiences, how they didn’t think the process was fair or inclusive, how they hated rating scales, and they shared all sorts of negative feelings and experiences. The word “hate” was often used. After venting, they would ask again what I was building, and I would say, “We’re fixing the performance review process.” And most would say, “It’s about time someone did that.”

Words matter, and I think we have been using the wrong words to describe “performance reviews.” In a MANAGEABLE system, employees are NOT accountable for their results; their individual manager is held accountable for their results. In a MANAGEABLE system, employees are asked to give their best efforts and are judged on how well they use their own judgement and discretion in solving problems while performing tasks assigned to them. Instead of “performance review”, the phrase should be “personal effectiveness.” How effective did the person perform versus how many things did they produce or deliver.

“How effective?” is a very different frame of mind than “how many?”

The MANAGEABLE approach calls for both the manager and team member to judge (separately) how well they believe the team member used their personal effectiveness (judgement and discretion) to do their work (This, of course, implies that the employee is in the right role). Instead of using rating scales (which nobody, ever, has said anything positive about), we narrow the judgement options to: Meeting, Exceeding or Not Meeting expectations. Only after both parties have submitted their initial judgements can they see the other person’s judgements. During the review meeting, they will spend little time discussing areas they agree on and more time on any areas where they disagree. It’s always a two-way discussion, but the manager is accountable for making final judgements and submitting the review.

So, what do managers in a MANAGEABLE system do to make personal effectiveness reviews work so well?

1. Define expectations clearly, upfront and throughout the review period. They clearly define what “meeting expectations” looks like. Team members should never say that they don’t know their manager’s expectations.
2. Coach 1:1 for success. MANAGEABLE managers coach team members throughout the year and provide helpful feedback or instruction. Being accountable for the results, managers want them to Meet or Exceed expectations. Team members should never be surprised during reviews; they should have received appropriate coaching all along.
3. Recognize team member contributions. MANAGEABLE provides the review people have been asking for. Both parties judging how well the person did in using their personal effectiveness, recognizing their contributions to business success.

Engage to get engagement. Move away from reviews that people hate, and move towards reviews that people like. (love?)