Performance Maintenance: Aligning Performance, Recognition & Discipline

We recently released a whitepaper authored by Dr. Christopher Lee, titled “Performance Maintenance: Aligning Performance, Recognition & Discipline”. Performance maintenance incorporates the full spectrum of performance dimensions and ensures that managers have all the tools necessary to create good performance and sustain it over the long term. It acknowledges a Bell Curve-like range of performance where there is always a group of exceptional employees in the top 10 – 20% of their peers who do better than expected, and a bottom 10 – 20% who do not perform as expected. The larger group in the middle is where supervision has its biggest impact, managing good performance day-to-day. This range provides a compelling argument that managers need different tools to work with high, low and average performers.

Dr. Lee argues that good performance management and day-to-day management are actually two sides of the same coin. You can’t have a strong performance management system if a manager does not provide good ongoing supervision throughout the year. A performance management system is a part of a continuum of ongoing information and feedback about the character and quality of work provided over time. As it is often said, there should be no surprises at the end of the yearly performance cycle because the information shared is consistent with that which was provided earlier. Performance management then is a process, not an event — maintenance.

All performance management systems have three elements in common, 1) a process, 2) a tool (instrument), and 3) an end-of-year performance review or discussion session. There are a variety of systems (processes) used: the traditional ratings approach, narratives, self evaluations, the 360 Degree Feedback Process, a development-based model, Goals/MBO (management by objectives), the Performance Conversations approach, the critical incident method, behaviorally anchored ratings scales and many others. Each of these processes highlight different elements of the performance dynamic, but all share the goal of helping supervisors track, regulate, manage and document performance. The process used says a lot about the goals that an organization is attempting to reach by implementing a performance management system.

A great way of concentrating on performance is by automating this process. Automation promotes accountability and transparency by making it easier to track, manage and report on performance outcomes—all important elements for Enterprise 2.0 organizations. An effective tool should facilitate the process the company wishes to use. For good performance management to occur, the emphasis is on the process of management and providing ongoing information, feedback, direction and support.

At the end of the performance cycle, there is always a time set aside for the manager and employee to discuss performance holistically and review the journals, evidence, or other documentation about performance that has occurred over the year. At its best, the performance discussion seeks agreement about what has happened. It also forecasts plans for the new year. When the manager has given feedback throughout the year, then there should be no surprises and therefore less anxiety about the meeting and the rating the employee has earned. The two can then focus on the information in the messages delivered by the supervisor, rather than deal with a potentially negative reaction to the rating. That’s why the emphasis is on the notion that performance management is a process, and management and performance management are two parts of a whole.

Next week we’ll look at bit more closely at each of the steps.