PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT - 3 PITFALLS TO AVOID

1. Too Much Scoring, Not Enough Discussing and Planning.
Performance management supports two objectives: 1) to evaluate the past and 2) to plan the future. But since the vast majority of organisations formally review employee performance once a year, managers try to achieve both objectives in one meeting. When performance management is an annual event, it becomes an annual failure, because in spite of their best intentions to discuss past performance and plan the future, managers find themselves delivering an annual report card and defending the scores to their employees.

Solution:
Score annually, but discuss and plan as often as necessary.
Employees, team members and supervisors should discuss the quality of recent performance and then set development plans in place to improve performance as an essential part of the job. A good Performance Management System should cater for this development plan and be able to track the progress of an individual through their development cycle, ensuring an effective and timely result. “Informal” performance management takes place during day-to-day feedback and discussion as supervisors and team members review work in progress. Remember when informal discussions take place with rating forms, there is the likelihood of staff becoming defensive, thus making the exercise ineffective.

2. Evaluation Forms Don’t Apply to the Employee’s Job.
Because performance evaluation forms are typically created by human resources departments or consultants, supervisors often have difficulty applying them to their employees. Problems arise when evaluation forms ask supervisors to rate employees on personal traits, such as maturity, attitude, personality, initiative, dependability; or on competencies like interpersonal skill, job knowledge and organizational skill. First, employees often become defensive when they receive general personal comments like, “you rate only 3 on a 5-point scale of maturity,” or “you have poor interpersonal skills.” Second, employees often disagree with the supervisor’s ratings because the characteristic being evaluated wasn’t directly observed. Third, evaluations of employees in vague, subjective terms like personal traits and competencies may lead to charges of discrimination.

Solution:
Give Feedback about Job-related Results and Performance.
One key to effective performance management is to discuss information that employees understand and can use to develop themselves and improve their performance. Therefore, employees, team members and supervisors should participate in creating the evaluation form. Two topics, results and performance, meet these standards and should generally form the bulk of the evaluation criteria. Softer competencies eg. Interpersonal skills or attitude should be evaluated by applying a more holistic and scientific approach eg. 360° questionnaires and assessments. A good Performance Management System allows for this flexibility. In addition a good system should be easy for employees and mangers to use in terms of making notes and keeping records, thus ensuring all parties have a ‘voice” during the performance management process.

3. Too Much Top-Down Communication.
Many supervisors dislike performance management because they feel like a punitive parent sitting in judgement. Unfortunately, annual review meetings force them into this role as they walk in with completed evaluation forms and begin the discussion.

Solution:
Listen and Probe First; Talk and Prescribe Later.
An obvious way to avoid this top-down style is to encourage employees to talk about their own performance before the supervisor or team members give feedback. This can be done during day-to-day discussions and in “semi-formal” reviews conducted every few months or at the end of a project. The secret is to draw out the employee’s views of his or her performance and plans for improvement by asking questions. Most people are aware of what they do well at work and what they need to improve and, if given the opportunity, they will identify their areas of strength and also constructively criticize their own performance while making plans for improvement. If they don’t, supervisors and team members can propose ideas for improvement later in the discussion.