Appreciating good performance is essential. But what if performance falls short?
The best way to "performance manage" is to give people regular, fair, and accurate feedback when they do jobs well and get good results. Our "Better performance management" briefing note summarises the Corporate Leadership Council's convincing survey showing that positive encouragement (where merited) is far better at improving results than even well-delivered negative feedback.
But poor performance has to be addressed too. If it’s a one-off glitch it may not be a problem. But supposing it’s starting to look like a pattern? You’re not happy. They’re not happy. The team’s not happy.
Let’s take it step by step, with an example - managing Mike, a person who reports direct to you.
A deal is a deal
The foundation of good performance management is the deal you initially agreed with Mike.
- Your part of the deal, as team leader is to be clear with Mike:
"Here are the targets we have agreed – x,y and z. They are few in number, stretching, but achievable with the resources plus skill and commitment” (see the SMART and compelling objectives briefing note to help with this).
You can’t expect results if the resources are insufficient or if Mike is being pulled in too many directions because you’re not doing your job.
- Mike’s side of the deal is his commitment to deliver the results.
“A deal is a deal” is so fundamental to building trust that it is essential to spend time getting the deal right. Of course, stuff happens and life throws curveballs. But the deal is the bedrock of good performance management.
Resolute and reasonable
If Mike’s results don’t come up to scratch, there may be a number of things going on, but it’s unlikely he’s deliberately screwing up.
But he is responsible for results on his watch.
The process of performance management can be a real challenge. It is essential to be resolute about results, but decent and fair with people. The conversation should be straightforward and candid - along the lines spelled out in skilful teamwork, and the more frequently you review progress together the lighter the touch can be.
Here’s how to go about it in three stages:
1. Agree the data that give you cause for concern
The first part of the process is to look at the data together, look at the deal and agree the problem. Do this by going through the results as you see them, verify and agree the information and so on.
2. Analyse possible explanations
First, re-visit the original expectations. Have you set Mike up with a fair chance of success, or have you set him up to fail? Is he simply overloaded with work? Is it simply a mis-match between expectations and resources? If so, what does this mean for commitments you have made to others?
If this is the explanation, you and Mike can work together to reduce expectations, stretch deadlines or increase the resources available to Mike. No easy options, but at least you’re combining your effort.
There are two more areas to review, often known as skill and will.
2a. Is it a skill problem?
Mike or his team are basically capable, but short on the skills needed. This should have been spotted earlier and factored in to the deal (perhaps calling for a separate conversation with Mike), but specific training will resolve the problem. An extra cost, but you may be able to get results back on track.
Or maybe, even with extra training , you sense that Mike or his team just don’t have the potential to develop the necessary skills. What then?
Assuming you have been through the proper processes to help Mike to improve his results, eventually you have to move Mike to a job that better suits his skills.
The emphasis here is decency. This is a problem of mis-casting. Mike is probably as uncomfortable as you and the rest of the team.
Your responsibility is to work with Mike to find a job he is better suited to.
2b. Is it a commitment problem?
Mike or his team are not pulling their weight. They may be de-motivated. They may be lazy.
De-motivation. Mike has the skills, but isn’t showing commitment. This needs exploring with him. There may be something you can do to help him through a difficult patch. It may even be something you’re doing that is sapping his confidence or enthusiasm.
Ultimately, though, you struck a deal with Mike. You must make the fine judgement call between moving him on to a job that he finds more motivating, or sticking with him through a challenging period.
Lazy is more straightforward, but more difficult. If Mike can’t or won’t shift his attitude - in a decent, legal way you move Mike out. The world does not owe him a living, and you don’t owe him a job. The team will thank you for it. They have been carrying a passenger they didn’t need.
3. Agreeing actions
When you have sorted through the possible explanations, you and Mike need to agree the actions to be taken, the resources and support to be committed, and a follow-up review date. These should be written down.
Management without consequence
The basis of a high performance culture is that performance has consequences.
Management systems where it doesn’t make any difference whether you perform well or badly – you still draw the same paycheck - are insidiously demoralising. They undermine people’s respect for the organization.
Performance management is notoriously difficult
When everything is going well performance management is joyful; the consequence is praise and celebration.
When it’s not, it’s uncomfortable. But it can still be done with decency and honest dialogue.
You want to steer clear of nagging and micro-management. And you certainly need to steer clear of bullying. But you also need not be apologetic or embarrassed – the Director’s job is to get the best possible results from the team.
Quick Tip for teams and individuals
Think through the approach described on this page - or talk about it with your team. Does this approach work for you? How would you like to amend it to suit your own situation? Can you develop an approach that works for your team conversations about performance.