Performance management is all about conversation
I recently read Jane Simms’ article in the June edition of the People Management magazine – ‘We’ve ditched appraisals. What’s next?”
I found this article to be very interesting because there are aspects of it which I regularly question clients when discussing their performance management system.
- Aren’t appraisals taking too much of your time?
If you were to ask managers, most would admit that their worst-kept secret is that their appraisal meetings are very low on their priority list (if it even gets to be on a ‘priority’ list). We need the buy-in from the management team to get close to an effective performance management system.
The appraisal form may or may not work for organisations. I do agree that this should be kept to a minimum and the simpler the appraisal form, the less bureaucratic and tedious the system becomes. Simms’ article rightly points out that the more the manager needs to write about his team member, the more positively biased the manager is. Managers might feel skeptical about writing harsh and negative comments on paper.
Some companies are simply using a blank sheet of paper instead of an appraisal form. It is important however to set guidelines to measure how employees are living-up to the company’s values. But, the meeting should be more about development, and less about evaluation. Ratings are also being eliminated. However, these can be useful for an employee to know where they employee stands. Ratings very much depend on the organisation’s culture. We need to keep in mind that designing or redesigning a performance management system may well mean a change in culture.
‘Talent roundtables’ are a new interesting system that involve conversations between manager and employee) about the employee’s careers, interests and strengths. The conversation will be on ways and methods through which these elements can be translated and matched to the company objectives and to development opportunities for the employee.
- The link between pay and performance.
Linking pay to performance systems has always been an area I strongly opposed. Should our employees be performing well because they know they will be rewarded? This defeats the scope of the performance management system – it’s aim is to discuss performance, listen to employees, showing that the company cares about their development. I’ve already written about the two different currencies of reward – having a total reward approach. Relational rewards are far more effective and may easily be given by the manager on an on-going basis, if performance is good. I strongly believe that pay reviews and performance appraisals should be kept separate.
- If your management doesn’t know how to give feedback to your staff – with or without a system in place – then appraisals will simply not work.
Weak conversations may lead to lack of trust and a poor working environment. Coaching management, as well as staff, on how to have fruitful and effective conversations with their staff is part of the initial stages of any performance management system. We need to take our time to teach and guide management on how to give on-going feedback.
How can we gauge if the system is effective?
It may have been easier to gauge the effectiveness of traditional performance management system. However, if performance management is done properly, there should be little concern for poor performers in the business. If managers take the time to understand their staff and why they are underperforming, employees will become better at their jobs. There will no longer be room for underperformers.
About the author
Maria Bartolo Zahra is Managing Director of SurgeAdvisory. She has over fifteen years of human resources and business advisory experience.