Performance Reviews in Sociocracy
Doing feedback management the right way
When I was learning Sociocracy, a participatory governance system, I was surprised at how well defined its performance review system is. Most small organizations fumble their way into developing a performance management system. A formal performance management process is often created after employees raise the issue of inadequate feedback, usually through a culture survey.
As David Rock from NLI says, performance management should really be about feedback management and the key to creating a culture of feedback is to practice asking for feedback. I believe Sociocracy’s performance management process addresses this pretty well. The Sociocratic governance model is in fact designed with learning and continuous improvement as one of its key principles. Hence, Sociocracy’s systems and practices encourage asking feedback regularly on all policies and processes in the organization. If you’ve read my earlier post (What, So what, Now What of Performance Reviews) you will see that Sociocracy’s process comes pretty close to what is recommended to make performance management more effective.
I would like to share the principles and key features of performance reviews in Sociocracy. If you subscribe to their worldview on performance reviews, even if you don’t know or care much about their governance model, I would encourage you to test, practice and adapt this framework within your organization.
The principles
These are the principles on which performance reviews in Sociocracy are built:
1. We take responsibility for our own work, feedback and doing better.
2. Feedback is data and/or information.
3. Feedback is key to continuous improvement — we need this information to learn, adapt, improve and change.
4. Feedback that can be heard is free of blame and given when the person is in a good enough place to receive it.
5. We can only talk about what we can observe more or less directly (i.e. we stay away from interpretations and generalizations)
The roles
1. Focus person — the individual whose performance is being reviewed. This individual is responsible for their own review and hence takes the lead in organizing the people and information needed for this to happen.
2. Feedback or assessment circle (team) — a group of members that the focus person works with from all levels of the organization, usually a workable group size.
3. Facilitator and Note taker — someone from within the feedback circle who facilitates the meeting and takes notes on behalf of the focus person. Both roles can be performed by the same person or by different people. Having someone take notes, allows the focus person to listen intently.
The outcome of a performance review is an action plan for how the focus person can improve which the focus person can accept and implement.
The process
The quickest way to explain the process is to say that a performance review in Sociocracy is essentially an open 360-feedback session. Feedback is given in person by a group of people who have worked with the focus person. This is a conversation rather than a one-way information giving process.
There are essentially 3 sections to this conversation. The first section focuses on what went well. The second section on what could have been done better. And finally, the third section on what action needs to be taken now and in the future to support the growth and development of the focus person.
Every section starts with the focus person doing a self-assessment followed by every member of the group pitching in. Each section then ends with the focus person providing a summary of what was heard.
Unlike the conventional 360 feedbacks, the review doesn’t just end with giving feedback. In Sociocracy the group also pitches in to create a development plan for the focus person. The focus person has to consent to the final action plan and this then becomes part of the next review meeting.
Key features of this performance review process
1. Developmental purpose
As you may have gathered this process is truly about feedback and development. It is not about ‘rewards’. So there is no discussion about pay or promotion in the review meeting. A developmental action plan is the final outcome of the review conversation. This plan has inputs from all the members in the review circle and has to be consented to by the focus person.
2. Strengths based approach
I believe this process is in line with what appreciative enquiry proposes by focusing first on what went well for the focus person during the review period. Instead of listing all the things that went wrong, bringing attention to what could have been better is a more valuable approach to improving performance. Pursuing a ‘strengths-based’ approach to performance review was found to be more effective in improving performance according to CIPD UK’s report on improving performance management.
Even if the focus person may have received feedback through different channels during the course of their time at work, having a team of trusted peers celebrate successes in person is invaluable.
3. Open 360
Peer feedback is given in real time and given openly (not anonymously). In a typical 360-degree feedback process peers from across the organization give feedback usually anonymously in written format to a set of questions or parameters. However, in Sociocracy, peers give feedback in person together in a meeting. Peers get to hear each other’s feedback to the focus person and there is opportunity for conversation and discourse.
Anonymous peer feedback — a side note on anonymous peer feedback
Most peer feedback is anonymous whether it is to a leader with positional power or to a team member in a project team. We have gotten used to running feedback processes anonymously.
For the receiver of feedback, this arrangement can feel comfortable or even ideal. I don’t trust someone to give me feedback in a manner that doesn’t feel shaming. If I don’t know who is giving me critical feedback, then I am not accountable to them.
For the giver of feedback, this arrangement protects them from retribution but also absolves them of any responsibility for the quality of the content or delivery of feedback. As the giver, I fear retribution if my name is tied to my comments especially if it to someone with power. I am more comfortable criticizing and often blaming someone through an anonymous process. Since there is no conversation I don’t need to substantiate my claims. I also don’t need to care to know what your role or roles are, what else is happening in your life or what efforts you have taken to do your role.
I can’t help but bring up Brené Brown and her work on shame and shame resilience. Our systems are designed to protect ourselves from shame but the same systems also use shame to punish often publicly and we’ve convinced ourselves that this is how we hold each other accountable.
But most importantly, we need systems that teach the difference between shame and accountability. We need to learn and practice the skills to give feedback that is free of blame and shame. We need skills to listen to feedback and not interpret it as shame. Without these skills and practices, I can see why anonymous peer feedback is hard to discontinue.
That said, safety and trust can’t just reside as value statements on a company website. An open 360 feedback process might just be the tool that can show safety and trust in practice.
4. Supports developing skills
Asking for feedback is a skill.
Celebration is a skill.
Giving feedback is a skill.
Listening is a skill.
And skills are built through learning and practice. Sociocracy’s performance review process provides opportunities to practice these skills. This process is practice ground in crafting and delivering our message with candor and compassion. Doing so in the presence of other colleagues ensures we adhere to the principles of giving feedback we spoke about earlier, i.e. good feedback is free of blame and focuses on observations and experiences not interpretations and generalization.
These skills need to be learnt first before being put to practice. Which is why ‘Communications’ training in addition to ‘Governance’ training should be part of mandatory trainings in any organization.
Some advice for practice
I would start with some kind of training on feedback so everybody is on the same page and there is trust that standards are common and agreed. I would suggest you start practicing reviewing project roles using a Sociocratic method. I would also add that a designated individual or a team leader does a check-in with the focus person to learn how the review session went and if the feedback was useful.
And finally, celebrate the small wins you make when asking for feedback becomes a habit. Like BJ Fogg says in his book Tiny Habits ‘The more skilled you are at celebration, the faster you can create habits.’
