Performance Review

For some reason, in the last few months, I and my firm, Interkannections have been involved a lot with performance management and feedback issues.

Working with the leadership team of one company, we learned from them that most of them had never had, and presumably were not giving, positive performance reviews. They have a hard-driving culture and, it seems, that positive comments or reviews are seen as “soft” or not critical to the success of the business. After uncovering this issue they are now in the process of figuring out how to be more appreciative of their subordinates and each other.

Another group of senior managers gathered together and frankly admitted that they did not know what to evaluate their people on. They had globally imposed categories and competencies that resonated rather weakly with the local realities of their business. Furthermore they were at wits end regarding measurement. How, they sincerely questioned, are we supposed to evaluate intangibles like “commitment to success?”

Then I stumbled upon this article in the Wall Street Journal. Written by UCLA professor Samuel Culbert, the unambiguously titled article, “Get Rid of the Performance Review” makes some pretty good points:

Two People, Two Mindsets: There are books that could (and have) been written on this point. How many of us have been in the same different meeting with our colleagues? I’ve written at great length in this blog about I-shaped, T-shaped, H-shaped, etc. people. An important thing to remember is that each of these shapes sees the world very differently. Throw in national culture and personal values and it’s amazing we understand each other at all.

Performance Does Not Determine Pay: Very true. Performance is a small piece of a much larger and complex political, financial, market-driven and personally influenced puzzle. I can think of one team leader I worked with who was livid because, for the last two review sessions, his team had outperformed the other teams in his division yet there was no recognition of this in their pay or bonuses. His management team was unable (or unwilling) to justify the reason and-literally-just asked him to help them think of a good way to explain this inexplicable situation to his team.

Objectivity is Subjective: This is something a lot us still have to fully understand. Objectivity is a myth. Meaning and understanding are socially created. Data is based on how and what we choose to measure. Performance is a matter of opinion, priorities and, quite often, a fair amount of luck. Agreement on KPI’s help as long as the Two People, Two Mindsets dynamic doesn’t render the agreement nonsensical.

One Size Does Not Fit All: Competencies, Key Success Factors and Key Performance Indicators are useful but they are only as useful as far as they relate directly and meaningfully to individual behavior. Trying to shoehorn individual behavior into these categories can be disastrous. People don’t want to (and, I believe, can’t) be crammed into weighted matrices and a list of performance standards. These tools need to be integrated and resonant with individual contexts and roles.

Personal Development is Impeded: In performance reviews this is, unfortunately, highly likely. If you dread your review or leave it bitter, confused or underwhelmed it is a clear impediment to your development. We grow and development to fit our environment while constantly and creatively interacting with and changing it. That creative interaction is driven by a desire to be and become something personally meaningful and life-giving. For performance reviews to contribute to personal development they need to be resonant with that which is meaningful for the person being reviewed. 

Disruption to Teamwork: There is that famous line “There is no ‘I’ in team.” Yet in performance reviews we are often inclined to take as much credit for our team’s success as we credibly can. Conversely, we may also find ourselves trying to shift the burden for underperformance to that very same team. Imagine a series of performance reviews where each member of a team provides a different story to explain the same results and/or lack of results. These Rashomon style performance reviews are definitely not what anybody wants. 

Immorality of Justifying Corporate Improvement: For a corporation to be sustainable, minimally, it must fit well and do no harm to the environments in which it operates. To flourish, a corporation needs to be generating and adding value not just for shareholders but for it’s people and the eco-systems (economic & ecological) that support and sustain it. Performance reviews should, optimally, enhance and stimulate better performance in positive, value generating ways. Currently, most don’t and, often, do just the opposite.

The Cure to the Performance Review Blues: To remedy these issues Culbert recommends dialogues between superior and subordinate that focus on problem solving, mutual accountability and, ideally, multi-faceted value generation. He calls these Performance Previews. It is management’s job to inquire and help the employee build objectives, plans, targets and goals that enrich the individual, his/her team and division/function, the company as a whole and extra-company stakeholders as well. 

The manager and employee need to consider each other and function as a team, each supporting the other. Like many other issues we’re facing this is Easy to say. Hard to do. Making the shift takes courage, time and real sense of respect and compassion for the people you work with. The choice is, as always, ours to make. 

There is a way out of our suffering. Are we willing to make the leap of faith and take it?

 

Tags: H-shaped people, I-shaped people, key performance indicators, key success factors, motivation, performance reviews, Samuel Culbert, sustainability, t-shaped people

Capacity Evolution Page Updates

I have updated the pages for:

• X-Shaped People
• G-shaped People
• I-shaped People
• T-shaped People
• H-shaped People
• A-shaped People
• U-shaped People

Tags: capacity evolution, H-shaped people, I-shaped people, leadership capacity, t-shaped people

We Do as We Are (Part 1: T-Shaped People)

A foundational element of our capacity to understand and engage the world is the way in which we relate to the world. In other words, we understand that of which we are aware–what we perceive. We engage with what we believe the world to be. How we engage with the world is who we are. A simple example is this: If I perceive the world as fundamentally other or separate from me then I will tend to be in opposition toward it. I will tend to try to control it, manipulate and use it as end to my means. That is who I am. Sound familiar?

In the this series of posts we’ll look at the different stages of perception we pass through as adults and the types of people these stages of perception tend to produce.

There has been a lot written about T-shaped people. For a good list of links visit Keith Instone’s blog. Tim Brown’s article in Fast Company talks about their strategy at IDEO:

We look for people who are so inquisitive about the world that they’re willing to try to do what you do. We call them “T-shaped people.” They have a principal skill that describes the vertical leg of the T — they’re mechanical engineers or industrial designers. But they are so empathetic that they can branch out into other skills, such as anthropology, and do them as well. They are able to explore insights from many different perspectives and recognize patterns of behavior that point to a universal human need. That’s what you’re after at this point — patterns that yield ideas.

T-shaped people can dive deep like their predecessors, the I-shaped people, but they have left the safety and comfort of their expertise behind. They engage and appreciate others and the contribution those people might bring to the project. However, people at the T-stage in their development may still tend to see their wide ranging connections as a means to a specific end. In other words, if you are in the T-shaped person’s network, you may be being used.

To really get egalitarian, we’re actually not looking at “T”, we’re talking about “H”. The difference is this: at the “T” level of capacity we are just beginning to engage others and the world in their complex glory. Others are still others. The world is still “out there.” When we make the move from “T” to “H” we take on a more inclusive perspective. The boundaries between “me”, “you” and “the world” begin to blur. The flower of inter-relation blossoms and the potential for organizations, communities and nations to really begin to transform emerges.

 

Tags: capacity, H-shaped people, I-shaped people, t-shaped people