Continuous conversations

With so many organisations adhering to the traditional annual performance review the only conclusion is that it must work really effectively. After all you wouldn't put so much time and resource in doing something that didn't work would you? Or maybe you would...

• Research in 2013 (Rock, Davis and Jones) found 86 percent of employers report being unhappy with their performance management systems.
• In the 2016 Global Talent Management and Rewards Study, Willis Towers Watson found that employees who viewed the performance management process at their company to be effective are more likely to be highly engaged.
• The traditional performance review process also fails to take into account that organisations are increasingly working in teams and emphasising collaboration. Performance review processes based on rankings and ratings are a poor fit in these synergistic working environments because they encourage competition and discourage collaboration among team members (Business.com, 2015)
• A study by Brandon Hall Group (2016) revealed that 73% of organisations described their performance management process as being process-oriented versus just 20% who described their process as people-oriented.
• During a traditional performance review, the recipient’s status is often threatened. This causes brain activity to diminish, and, when that happens, a person’s field of view constricts and takes in a narrower stream of data— which also restricts creativity. In essence, performance reviews actually dull the brain. (McGregor, 2013).
• In his 2016 research-paper, ‘Transforming the Traditional Performance Review Process’ Kimberly Schaufenbuel, Program Director, UNC Executive Development suggests the traditional performance review process is simply not designed to improve performance or develop employees. It was designed to assess past performance to determine an employee’s annual raise and is rooted in a tradition that does not reflect how work gets done today. Today’s work requires goal cycles as short as a month or a week, yet the traditional performance review process remains based on a 12-month cycle. 

"If staff are the biggest asset of your business, then why aren't they the thing you spend most of your time investing in?"

 And there is more…

• A 2006 Corporate Research Foundation paper: ‘improving performance through appraisal dialogue’ showed that more frequent conversations between managers and their staff had a bigger impact on performance improvement than traditional fixed point reviews
• A 2011 study by the Institute for Employment studies showed that performance conversations had a greater impact the more frequently they occurred. Conversations held more than three weeks apart tended to be focussed on what had been done and the remembered events, while conversations held more frequently tended to focus on what needed to be done and what was required to make it happen. 
• In his 2016 research-paper, ‘Transforming the Traditional Performance Review Process’ Kimberly Schaufenbuel, Program Director, UNC Executive Development suggests the traditional performance review process is simply not designed to improve performance or develop employees. It was designed to assess past performance to determine an employee’s annual raise and is rooted in a tradition that does not reflect how work gets done today. Today’s work requires goal cycles as short as a month or a week, yet the traditional performance review process remains based on a 12-month cycle.

A potential solution

While every organisation is different, with it's culture and needs, the one thing that can have the biggest positive impact on your organisation's performance is not rocket science, better IT systems or forms and processes, but regular meaningful conversations between a manager and their member of staff. This stream of continuous conversations will build understanding and engagement, improve performance and help avoid the 'difficult' conversation (another topic for another day - as no conversation should be difficult)

A conversation is a two -way process of talking and listening (your ears outnumbering your mouth by two-to-one). That might seem obvious or instinctive, but too often performance reviews are not a conversation, but a tick box exercise or a way for one or both parties to offload their own anxieties, frustrations or stress.

Performance conversations, like performance itself, are not one-off events but a continuous process of understanding and improvement. Like playing a musical instrument, practising little and often is the way to mastery. Meaningful conversations need to be simple, structured and carried out regularly to create a continuous conversation.

A couple of simple structures for these conversations might be:

1. What am I doing? What are my objectives or goals and how will I know when they are done?
2. How am I doing? What is the impact of what I am doing for me, the team, and the organisation?
3. Does it matter? who cares what I do and what is the value of my individual contribution.
4. How can I do better? What do I need from either myself or others to be better at what I do

or

1. What do I need to do?
2. What do I want to do?
3. What would I like to do?
4. What do I need to stop doing?

The problem with a control freak is that when they inevitably lose control all you are left with is the freak*

* Freak as in 'behave or cause to behave in a wild and irrational way, typically because of the effects of extreme emotion or drugs' or 'a very unusual and unexpected event or situation'.