News

Why do we measure performance so vigorously? It's crucial to tracking organizational success, right? How could we possibly know if the organization is on track to achieve its goals if we don't put each individual under the spotlight and measure their every output? Here's how it works: the organizational objectives are cascaded down, individual objectives are determined along with appropriate performance measures, and then the manager ranks the employee outputs on a numerical rating system. It's simple! If they're not achieving the required ratings, they are under performing…right? 

Wait a minute, let's cast the light a little wider to look at the bigger picture...

I'm going to turn the clock back quickly to my high school days, where our head teacher, an educational psychologist, ran a workshop to show us what it might be like to experience severe dyslexia within a high-pressure unsupportive environment. We sat at our desks and the teacher explained that our task was to reproduce a piece of writing. But there was a catch, we realized, as she placed a screen below our chins to hide the papers from our direct view. The only way to read, and to see what we were writing was in the reflection of a mirror sitting in front of us. Everything was upside-down and back-to-front. She paced impatiently behind us breathing down our necks and screaming that we were being measured on speed and accuracy. Needless to say the pressure clouded my focus, crushed my confidence and worsened my performance.

Now these conditions were far from subtle, however you might agree that the objectives were unrealistic given the conditions. Our under-developed skills coupled with the stressful conditions and absence of quality mentoring were a massive hinderance to our chances of success. What better recipe to decrease self esteem, decrease engagement and decrease performance! One might say we were set up to fail. In the workplace, an employee who demonstrates these stereotypical low performance indicators would be of concern to the business and a classic response might be to put them under the spotlight, on a performance improvement plan with closer monitoring. There certainly is a time and place for this mechanism, but is rushing to reactive tactics before we evaluate the bigger picture the best approach? Could the spotlight aggravate the stress for both the employee and the business, who by now has invested resources into hiring, training and integrating the employee?

Are managers setting employees up to succeed from the outset?

Working in recruitment, it's not uncommon for us to hear candidates talk about covering 2 or more people’s workloads, as well as perhaps contributing to additional projects in collaboration with other teams. They explain that their manager didn't comprehend the full scope of their role, yet expected to see results. Some tell us about being thrown in with limited support and struggling to get off to a good start. It’s the perfect concoction for burnout, disengagement and low productivity. If managers don't comprehend the full situation and have neglected to set the employee up for success, are they really in a position to judge the employee's performance? Let’s put the spotlight on the managers now and take a closer look at what they could be doing differently. 

First it should be said that measuring performance objectively is no easy task. Sure, some goals and measurements may seem black and white, but with so many contextual factors to consider, we need to be holistic in some of our judgements. The thing is, humans are not naturally wired to make objective judgements. We are fundamentally programmed to draw on our own perspectives, experiences and emotions, and therefore highly prone to making biased judgements. Equally, when it comes to coaching, many leaders instinctively teach in their own learning styles because it makes sense to them that way. However, teaching a creative visual person how to perform a task by chucking a long detailed manual at them to decipher may be highly ineffective and could provoke counterproductive stress and self-doubt, as I experienced in my high school workshop. Tools like NLP, Thrive, HBDI and Clifton StrengthsFinder have been instrumental in teaching leaders how to see the world from the eyes of another and adapt their coaching style to have a meaningful impact.

The NeuroLeadership Institute recently published a thought-provoking article which points out that many businesses, including Deloitte, Accenture, GE and Cigna, have already scrapped the traditional performance appraisal system. They highlight the importance of ditching our obsession with metrics and our tendency to treat humans as numerical rating, and encourage instead an increase in high-quality performance development conversations throughout the year between managers and employees.

If the “Choose Your Own Manager” system seems too complex for now, perhaps a good trial for some businesses would be to offer a formal mentor who can contribute to performance appraisals or performance development conversations. In the grand scheme of organisational development, the goal is to enhance overall business performance, so this should hopefully seem like a feasible systemic solution. After all, why would we deprive employees of conditions under which they will flourish and ultimately deliver better results? 

A bit left-field perhaps. I'd love to hear your thoughts, so feel free to get in touch!