For many companies, it’s that time of year — time for year-end performance reviews. Time to see if we can find our performance reviews from last year, or head over to Human Resources to get a copy. For managers, time to dust off the performance reviews from last year and see if anything’s changed.

If you’re like most of us, you haven’t kept a daily diary of your accomplishments, so you have to construct an account of the last 12 months from long-buried memories in just a few days. You don’t bother listing your close calls, almosts, and never-weres — you need to put a positive spin on your year.

You might go into the review feeling you did a “more-than-adequate” job, even if you can’t quantify it exactly. Then again, you might approach the review with a sense of foreboding. You’re not well prepared. Maybe you feel like you’re going to get slammed. Maybe you wish the shoe were on the other foot. Maybe you wish everybody would just forget about it.

The performance review, as most of us know it, is a broken process. Lately, there appears to be a groundswell of support for the idea of doing away with performance reviews. According to an article in a recent Wall Street Journal, many HR professionals are “frustrated that managers don’t have the courage” to give constructive feedback.

In an interview from July, 2010, UCLA business professor Samuel Culbert said that performance reviews should be dispensed with altogether because annual reviews don’t promote candid discussions about problems in the workplace or their potential solutions.

Going back to 2006, the Harvard Business School’s “Working Knowledge” page ran an article by James Heskett, one of the HBS faculty, in which he called into question the main objective of performance reviews. Professor Heskett asked, “Is (the objective) to weed out poor performers? To recognize the so-called A players? To provide the basis for compensation decisions?” He concluded that we don’t do a good job of establishing or communicating objectives.

W. Edwards Deming, one of the gods of quality, called the performance review one of the “deadly diseases of management“. You’re not going to find a much stronger indictment than that.

It’s been a few years since I’ve had a formalized performance review. The manager in question got much more out of the typical performance review because he always had the performance of the group in mind. He linked my performance to that of my teammates, which helped create and maintain a team ethos.

Unfortunately, his type of performance review wasn’t the norm. Too often, the performance review is an exercise with no apparent purpose, except to satisfy a regulatory requirement or follow a decades-old policy. We go through the motions but don’t accomplish anything. By conducting performance reviews the way we do, we miss so many opportunities for improvement.

We all deserve better from this “process”.

* * * * * * *

I’m currently conducting a performance review poll on LinkedIn. Please drop in (it’ll only take 10 seconds, if that) and register your opinion. Or, post a comment below.

What do you think? Do performance reviews work for your company or your group? Or, do you think the performance review should’ve been retired with the mechanical adding machine and green eyeshades?

* * * * * * *

REFERENCES

• Light, Joe, “Human Resource Executives Say Reviews Are Off the Mark”, Wall Street Journal (Nov 7 2010) – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704575596723632340284.html
• NPR Staff, “Annual Job Review Is ‘Total Baloney,’ Expert Says”, NPR-dot-org (Jul 8 2010) – http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128362511
• Heskett, Jim, “What’s to Be Done About Performance Reviews?”, HBS Working Knowledge (Nov 27 2006) – http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5563.html
• “Management’s Five Deadly Diseases – a Conversation with Dr. W. Edwards Deming”, Encyclopedia Brittanica Educational Corporation , 1984 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehMAwIHGN0Y. (Video is approx. 15 minutes long.)

FURTHER READING

• Peralta, Eyder, “Top 10 Performance Review Euphemisms”, NPR-dot-org (Nov 9 2010) – http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/11/09/131189907/top-ten-performance-review-euphemisms

Why DO we write procedures? Anyone? (“Because we HAVE to!”)

Well, that’s one reason, though it’s not the best one. (“What do you mean, ‘not the best one’? The law says we need written procedures to be in compliance. If we’re not in compliance, we lose business.”)

Believe it or not, there are many excellent reasons to write procedures, and complying with regulations or standards, while it may seem the most important reason (because of the potential for fines and other penalties), is actually pretty far down the list. The best reasons for writing procedures include:

1. Documenting and analyzing process results in order to improve the process (in other words, you know if a process is getting better or worse by taking measurements and comparing them);
2. Communicating how you measure the effectiveness of a process (i.e., what your expectations are for the process (pieces per hour, zero defects, etc.));
3. Decreasing process error rates (moving the process closer to Six Sigma performance level);
4. Making it easier to replicate a process (that is, regardless of who’s working at it or when, the process remains the same);
5. Retaining and transferring valuable knowledge;
6. Documenting — and sharing — risks, hazards, and “lessons learned”;
7. Reducing the time you need to train (or retrain) workers;
8. Improving the consistency of process results (another way to put it is “your customers don’t like surprises”);
9. Simplifying access to — and understanding what is — important information; and
10. Solidifying the foundation for your company’s growth.

So, what do you think? Did I miss something? Do you know any other reason why written procedures make sense?

Like I say when someone wishes me good luck, “I hope it doesn’t come down to luck…but I won’t turn it down if it comes my way.”

We all know what “corrective action” is, right? If you don’t, it’s really easy. It’s an action you take to eliminate the root cause of a problem (or nonconformance), thereby preventing — or reducing the likelihood of — the problem’s recurrence.

So, define the problem. (Well, see, it’s like this. Our skater was ahead — I mean “way ahead” — in the longest of the long-distance races. It’s, like, six miles. And with nearly three-quarters of the race gone, his opponent’s nowhere near him. He might as well be in another building…or another country.)

Doesn’t sound like a problem to me. (I was about to get to that. It’s at that point that our guy’s supposed to switch lanes to the outside. Only our coach says, “INSIDE!”, and our guy GOES inside, like he’s told. And because he didn’t switch lanes, our man’s DQ-ed.)

DQ-ed? (Disqualified. He had the best time, but didn’t win the race. We had the best man, the best coaches, the best training, best nutrition, best staff, the fastest track…and we have nothing to show for all that. No winner, no medal, no endorsements…nothing.)

And why was your man disqualified? (Like I said, the coach said “go inside” and he went inside. The coach made a mistake. So did our skater, I guess.)

Why did the coach tell your skater to go inside? (He wasn’t paying close attention…he was distracted…he was confused, somehow.)

Why did the skater do what the coach said? (He trusted the coach. He wasn’t paying attention, either.)

Why weren’t they paying attention? (I can’t say for sure. Maybe they were so far ahead, they got a little careless.)

See what we did? Recognize the “Five Whys”? We got down to a possible root cause. I say ”possible” because we rely on an individual’s focus, memory and biases. If we subject several people, including the skater and coach, to the “Five Whys”, we get a somewhat balanced result.

Now that we’ve identified a root cause, how do we eliminate it? Better yet, “What does this have to do with MY business?” For the answer to these and other questions…

…stay tuned.

Last time we talked about process as a conceptual representation of work flow. Processes show how business functions work together at a certain rate to achieve a goal. Processes show inputs being transformed into useful outputs at some rate of flow or tempo. A good process leaves out non-flow information, and is simple (Figure 1.).

Figure 1. Processes should communicate the main steps occurring within a business function. Show the inputs and outputs, and the useful transformation taking place. “Useful” is usually determined by the customer. Draw processes as simple as possible. Illustration copyright Bizmanualz, Inc.

Simple processes provide information at the level of a business function. But workers require much more literal information. Most of the time, workers design their own work by determining how they will achieve a goal within their perceived constraints: “Hit the ball by swinging the bat. You get three outs.”

Workers create mental pictures and checklists of what they need to do to get their job done. They translate, in essence, from the conceptual process to the literal steps (Gifure 2.). “Hold the bat hand over hand. Watch the ball. Swing level.”

You can help translate the process into action by showing the literal steps.  ”Showing” may entail demonstrating, training, and coaching. It may include providing pictures or diagrams to remind workers what they need to do.

Use Pictures

Figure 2. Pictures and diagrams help remind us how we want to approach our work. Pictures are especially helpful when we want to change the way we do our work. Picture credit blogs.sun.com/DaveEdstrom

Especially when we want to change or adjust how we do something, we may need to be reminded of what we are supposed to do differently. Pictures and diagrams are particularly useful for that.

Recently I built a cedar fence along my property line. Though I had built fences years ago with my dad, I needed a reminder of how to set and steady the posts (Figure 3.) before pouring the concrete, and how to scribe a level line across the fence row. I found a book with pictures and referred to it while working.

Figure 3. Even for experienced workers, referring to pictures helps plan the job and recall the special know-how that they have acquired. Picture credit: www.ourfixerupper.com

So you can see there is a wide gap between the conceptual process of playing baseball and the literal steps of swinging a bat; or between the process of building a fence and the literal work of setting a row of fence posts. Translating from the process to the literal work in ways that help people do their work is what we call implementation.

And, as they say, implementation is where the rubber meets the road (Figure 4.).

Figure 4. Your process may be fine-tuned. But it takes action-oriented communications and job training to roll out your process effectively. Picture credit: About.com

In future posts, we will look at how to use training, job aids, video and other media to effectively implement processes.

PR: wait… I: wait… L: wait… LD: wait… I: wait… wait… Rank: wait… Traffic: wait… Price: wait… C: wait…