What, So What, Now What of Performance Management

A collation of various perspectives

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

A performance review process is a fairly common people process that exists in an organization whether a corporate or a social enterprise. A firm usually develops a performance review process as part of its ongoing efforts to formalize how an individual’s performance at work is defined, assessed and rewarded or recognized.

• An individual’s review process typically involves the following steps:
• Setting of an individual’s goal for a set time period, collaboratively with the team leader or the leader may assign goals
• Judging an individual’s performance against standard ratings/criteria
• Giving feedback to the employee about said ratings
• Making some decision about the individual’s future in the organization

The performance review usually has two purposes. One is to support the growth and development of the employee in his or her role in the organization. The other purpose is to serve as a basis for decisions around promotions, rewards or termination from employment.

Over the years I’ve read a lot about the issues and concerns about performance reviews along with insights from the fields of psychology, business and now neuroscience on how to deal with these concerns.

Having read the different views on performance management, I felt the need to simplify and collate the various perspectives into key messages. I’ve categorized them into the ‘What, So what and Now What’ framework

1. WHAT — What are the issues/problems around performance reviews that get written about?

2. SO WHAT — What can we infer or conclude about these issues?

3. NOW WHAT — Now what do we do about them?

I have listed all the readings I have referenced here at the end of this piece.

WHAT

Objectivity & bias

We are not reliable raters of other people’s performance. We can’t tell someone where he or she stands in an objective way. A rater’s judgment is largely a reflection of the rater.

• The role of a manager as a judge AND coach/counselor is often conflicting and so rarely done well.
• We erroneously believe that great performance is universal, analyzable and describable and once defined it can be transferred from one person to another.

Goals

Goals can help steer our performance and also improve performance as long it matches our ability or is just enough of a challenge.

• Goals need to be used with care and tailored to the nature of the task. For e.g. straightforward tasks will require specific and challenging goals while complex tasks will need more general ‘do-your-best’ outcome goals or goals focused on learning and behavior.
• Progress towards goals need to be monitored for them to be effective.

Feedback

When given well at the right moment feedback can be invaluable, given poorly it can feel devastating

• Feedback is data or information.
• Feedback is not a gift, in fact it is threatening both for the ‘giver’ and the ‘receiver’ of feedback.
• Colleagues are often reluctant to tell us the stuff we don’t want to hear, but need to hear. Studies have shown that there are often wide discrepancies between how we see ourselves and how others see us.
• Although supervisors are trained in the rules of feedback, many tend to avoid confronting colleagues and speaking up in the moment.
• We are willing to accept critical feedback only when it is related to specific instances, is given with genuine liking for us and by someone we trust and respect.

Learning

We learn best when we are building on our strengths.

• Focusing on our shortcomings impairs our learning.
• Conversations about the future, i.e. forward-looking creative planning sessions are energizing.

Process and purpose of reviews

Our reaction to feedback is what counts. It impacts how feedback will affect performance.

• If we perceive the review process to be fair, we are likely to react favorably to the review process irrespective of the outcome.
• We are not receptive to feedback when the review combines conversations about promotions, pay or other rewards (i.e. administrative purpose) with conversations about improving performance, learning and growth (i.e. developmental purpose).

Personality factors

Our personalities and individual differences affect how we set goals and interpret feedback.

• Personality and other individual differences affect the value of goal setting and performance feedback. Not everybody will respond to goals in the same way.
• Personality variables influence how employees react to feedback, especially negative feedback. Those with a growth-mindset will likely accept critical feedback as the basis to improve and grow.

SO WHAT

• When we say we are giving feedback, all we are saying is ‘here is MY experience, observation or reaction’ or ‘how I see things’.
• Feedback is important, not a rating. As adults we are responsible for our own learning and feedback is necessary for us to learn and build the skills or attitudes we need to succeed at work. It’s best that we ask for feedback when we are ready to receive it.
• A single individual cannot be a reliable source of information about our work. We need multiple sources of feedback to provide a complete picture of how our work and behavior is perceived or impacts others.
• We need to be confronted on our blind spots and we are likely to listen to critical feedback if we feel safe with the person or people giving it to us.
• Conversations about pay and conversations about performance are best held separately.
• Collecting feedback on the process and assessing responses to performance conversations are both important.
• Getting to know individual personalities and other differences in individuals in your team is key to ensuring performance reviews are effective.

NOW WHAT

• Feedback can feel less threatening in a culture that has a growth mindset and supports continuous improvement. Asking for feedback in general, whether about a meeting or a presentation needs to become a norm in such a culture. Leadership can play a big role in leading the way by asking for feedback openly and often.
• Having goals to work towards provides focus and drives performance. However, goals need to be tailored to the context and personality of the individual. And once goals are set progress towards those goals need to be monitored to drive performance.
• Collecting direct and diverse feedback makes for a richer landscape of information about us. Understanding how people perceive our actions can be a useful reality check.
• Learning the skills to give feedback and confront is as important if not more than the steps in the review process itself. Learning to communicate with candor and compassion takes training and practice and is well worth the investment.
• Checking-in with individuals soon after a performance conversation can provide valuable information about how the feedback landed on them and if the feedback was useful. If it wasn’t then issues can be addressed and discussed immediately.
• Investing in tools and practices that help individuals know themselves and each other can help make goal setting and feedback more relevant and effective.

My biggest takeaway from all the different perspectives is that performance management needs to be seen as feedback management. It works best when asking for feedback becomes the norm across the length and breadth of the hierarchy. After all giving feedback even in our personal lives is a difficult task and one that needs to be learnt continuously.

Reference sources

1. Assessing what works in performance management, CIPD UK

2. The Art of Choosing, Sheena Iyengar

3. Why performance management needs to become feedback management, Corey Dysick, David Rock

4. Feedback is not a gift, Ed Batista

5. The feedback fallacy, Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall

6. People actually don’t know themselves very well, Adam Grant