How to conduct an effective performance review
18 October 2010
Read by 2031 persons
The end of the year is approaching, and with it, the unchanging ritual of the annual review, which each company names as it pleases: "evaluation", "progress", "performance", etc. The exercise is well-known; it is a matter of taking stock of the year in light of the objectives set a year earlier and setting new ones for the coming year. In most cases, variable compensation is correlated with this assessment. This moment, a kind of managerial concentrate, is crucial regarding the relationship one builds with one's collaborator.
Two key elements are essential for creating a lasting climate of trust: giving as much importance to the "how" as to the "how much" and taking into account the difficulties encountered.
Recently, at a seminar, a manager recounted that his direct supervisor had assured him that his main quality was that he never brought up problems. He is probably not the only one who considers that a good collaborator is the one who bothers him the least with his worries. It is enough for the manager to check that the objectives are met and to give him a pat on the back, or even possibly a bonus. The annual review is dispatched, and the manager can get back to "real" work.
A narrow door
Conversely, some collaborators who have not achieved their results are considered underperforming and, worse, in bad faith if they mention the problems they have encountered. The interview lasts, emotions rise on both sides. And, most of the time, each of the two protagonists leaves with the feeling that the other does not understand him, which generates mutual distrust as a corollary. In both cases, the manager is not fulfilling his role. Or rather, he limits his role to the strict minimum of distributor-controller of objectives. The challenge for the collaborators is then to present the most beautiful possible bride at the risk of concealing. The consequence is known; by only having good news, one misses the essential. This is how managers discover delays very late, as happened at Airbus, which had to postpone the delivery of its very large aircraft by several months.
Between the attitude of "doing instead of" and the attitude of not wanting to know, the door is narrow. As often, depending on his affinities and temperament, the manager is tempted to switch from one side to the other.
The annual review is an opportunity to redefine the framework that allows one to explain again one of the specificities of its managerial added value: providing assistance with implementation difficulties. It is also the time to give oneself a new framework for relational functioning to improve exchanges and limit interpretations.
Both will then have in mind a common criterion of this relational quality. If the collaborator never reports any difficulties, it is either that he is concealing something, or that he is in tasks of pure repetition. If the collaborator reports too many subjects, it is because he is using his manager to do his work for him.
Posted on October 19, 2010
lesechos.fr
Two key elements are essential for creating a lasting climate of trust: giving as much importance to the "how" as to the "how much" and taking into account the difficulties encountered.
Recently, at a seminar, a manager recounted that his direct supervisor had assured him that his main quality was that he never brought up problems. He is probably not the only one who considers that a good collaborator is the one who bothers him the least with his worries. It is enough for the manager to check that the objectives are met and to give him a pat on the back, or even possibly a bonus. The annual review is dispatched, and the manager can get back to "real" work.
A narrow door
Conversely, some collaborators who have not achieved their results are considered underperforming and, worse, in bad faith if they mention the problems they have encountered. The interview lasts, emotions rise on both sides. And, most of the time, each of the two protagonists leaves with the feeling that the other does not understand him, which generates mutual distrust as a corollary. In both cases, the manager is not fulfilling his role. Or rather, he limits his role to the strict minimum of distributor-controller of objectives. The challenge for the collaborators is then to present the most beautiful possible bride at the risk of concealing. The consequence is known; by only having good news, one misses the essential. This is how managers discover delays very late, as happened at Airbus, which had to postpone the delivery of its very large aircraft by several months.
Between the attitude of "doing instead of" and the attitude of not wanting to know, the door is narrow. As often, depending on his affinities and temperament, the manager is tempted to switch from one side to the other.
The annual review is an opportunity to redefine the framework that allows one to explain again one of the specificities of its managerial added value: providing assistance with implementation difficulties. It is also the time to give oneself a new framework for relational functioning to improve exchanges and limit interpretations.
Both will then have in mind a common criterion of this relational quality. If the collaborator never reports any difficulties, it is either that he is concealing something, or that he is in tasks of pure repetition. If the collaborator reports too many subjects, it is because he is using his manager to do his work for him.
Posted on October 19, 2010
lesechos.fr
