|  |  |  | | | | | | SECTION I – The 2nd E in L.E.A.D.E.R.S.: EVALUATION | | |
“Leaders Succeed by Making Judgments”
When most of us begin our first job, we have been through the process of being schooled and tested for the skills and knowledge that we have gained. Virtually our entire lives, beginning with the first day of school, we have been evaluated on our success. We have been in constant competition, whether it was against the standards for an A, or against an opponent on the sport field. People made judgments about our performances in school, and when we entered the work place it started all over again. There is no escaping the process of evaluation. Students get grades; workers get performance evaluations. As a leader, you are required to make those evaluations. I suspect that when you gave your first performance evaluation, you realized that all those people who had been evaluating you probably experienced the same emotion you were feeling…anxiety. Yes, every time I do a performance evaluation I feel anxious, even uncomfortable. It is no fun being put in a position where I am the “judge’ of someone’s performance. I imagine that evaluating your staff makes you uncomfortable as well, even if you’re like me and have done it many times over the years. So why is that? Well, for one, it means that you must have criteria against which to assess the performance (you may recall that these criteria are part of “Expectations”—the first E in L.E.A.D.E.R.S.). This poses a problem for the many leaders who never clearly defined and communicated the expectations. How can you make this evaluative judgment if you, and worse still your associates, are not clear on what the expectations were for the period of evaluation? Even if you had stated the expectations, how do you make a judgment about how well they were met if you do not have effective measurements of performance, let alone a clear evidence of that performance? On top of all that, most of us know that if we give a positive comment, it may not be strong enough to elicit a favorable reaction from the associate; conversely, if we give a negative or unsatisfactory comment, we can almost certainly predict that there will be a disagreement from the associate. In any case, the conversation can end up being an emotional and maybe even confrontational event. Few of us enjoy that type of interaction. Despite the difficulties, every one of us has done a performance review and somehow gotten trough it. Whether the review was effective is a different issue. Far too many performance reviews are so weak on either facts or focus, that they fail in their intended use as a constructive part of the development process. They become either poor report cards, or perhaps even super high grades, which reflect only our unwillingness to deal with conflict. More often than not, evaluations are done once a year and reflect not our judgments about performance and how it can be improved, but rather our judgments and conclusions about performance and how it reflected success or failure. Indeed, performance evaluations done infrequently are simply too little too late. Every leader must learn that an evaluation should be made frequently enough to be judgmental and developmental. As leaders we are required to make judgments, but those judgments should start as a developmental effort, not a final judgment and disposition. Yes, we will ultimately need to decide success or failure, but along the way, we must give adequate feedback so that our associates can learn from the critiques. If we do not give that feedback early and often, we are failing our associates. Quite frankly, many people in the work world do not really understand how well they are doing in their jobs, and it is our responsibility to make certain that they do. You may recall that I said in an earlier newsletter that being a leader is simple, but not easy. That comment is never more accurate than in evaluation. If you have done a good job of defining expectations, then the criteria for assessment and evaluation are already established and it is quite simple to tally up the achievement and score the performance. That is the simple part; the “not easy” part is actually giving the feedback. Most leaders, and I am no exception, do not find these feedback sessions easy. Unless you have a super star working for you, there is always something that you will say that will be a negative comment. If your experience is like mine, you know that will engender some disagreement from the associate, and most of us do not like the emotional stress of a disagreement. Nevertheless, that conversation is essential for the organization, you and the associate if you are going to improve the pe! rformance of your unit. It is not easy to follow through, but we must make these judgments if we are to assure success in our units. | | | SECTION II – Mini Case – “President Patty” | | |
Jackie has been the supervisor of the call center team for just over a year and it is now time for her to give her staff their annual reviews. Three of her weakest- performing associates are up for review and she is truly dreading those sessions. In each case, she is convinced that the employee is not going to make it, but she is just as convinced that not a single one of these employees will agree with her assessment. In fact, they apparently think they are doing a great job, as she heard from another supervisor that each one of the weak-performers is expecting a big raise.
Since the first of the year, Jackie has been keeping elaborate notes about each what each person has done, good and bad. There is no doubt in her mind that she has the facts to support her evaluation of each employee. Once the performance appraisals are completed, she can send the documentation to the HR department, and she is certain that they will be very comfortable with the facts and will terminate the employees. In spite of being confident in her assessment, Jackie is nervous and uncomfortable with the prospect of doing these appraisals. Her bosses agreed to her request that he sit in with her, and this afternoon they will do the three sessions together. Question: What should Jackie do? Quite simply, I think Jackie and her boss should cancel the review sessions and instead have a meeting themselves. Unless we do not know something about the last year, the story suggests that Jackie has never talked to the employees about their performances. If this is the case, then I suspect that if she goes forward with the performance evaluation sessions as planned, these three associates will come “unglued.” There is no doubt that if I were working for a full year and believed that I was doing a great job, only to learn at the end of that year that I had failed, I would be more than a little upset. Worse still, Jackie seems to think that she will be able to take these “facts” to the HR department and that they will terminate the employees. In my experience, most well-managed organizations have a policy that requires a process of feedback about weak or failed performance because it gives employees an opportunity to improve performance over time. I suspect that Jackie’s organization is no exception; hence, it is likely that the HR department would tell her that they can not support the termination of these employees. Jackie may not like the idea, but she probably needs to begin the progressive feedback process with these meetings. She should treat these reviews as the first in a series of meetings that will be required to either improve performance or to “build a case” for termination. Any other course of action could be illegal, and at a minimum, would be unfair to the associates.
| | | SECTION III – Tips From The Czar | | |
Deciding when and where to have an evaluation session is worth a few moments of reflection. The key to this decision begins with the assumption that you want the session to be at a time and place that is conducive to the associate accepting your feedback as valid and constructive. This means that you want the associate to be open to your comments, not resistant. Think of these factors:
- Is this associate a morning person or an afternoon person? Schedule the session when he or she is most likely to be alert and responsive.
- Reviews tend to make even the great performers feel insecure, so choose a setting that is comfortable for your employees.
- Hold the session in a place where you are not using your “power of authority.” If you have an office, don’t sit behind the desk. If you don’t have an office, try a conference room with a round table.
- Consider the associate’s most recent positive performance, and start out the session with a strong comment about that success. This is particularly important if you are going to be giving a lot of negative feedback.
- You should dress in an outfit that does not emphasize your power, but rather is more comfortable. Take into consideration your associates’ attire as well, and whether they might feel more at ease on a casual attire day.
Try to avoid sessions when you know that the associate is having problems in his/her personal life. That distraction will make it hard for them to be effective listeners.
| | | SECTION IV – Ask The Czar | | |
Barbara: I just interviewed the best candidate I have ever talked to, but she wants twice the salary I can offer, what should I do?
The Czar: That is a great question. My first response is: I hope it was not the first interview, as I always try to avoid salary talks in the first interview. Further, why was this a surprise to you or to her? Did your job posting, advertisement, or recruiter clearly communicate the salary range? Regardless, you need to be very straight, very early. If we assume you are not the owner of the business, and that there is some HR person or business manager who is setting the salary, then you have a range that is not going to materially change. The candidate needs to know that the salary range is firmly set, and that you will not be able to pay more. Perhaps this will cause the person to walk away, so you must be certain that the range is indeed firm and non-negotiable. If the range can not be adjusted higher, then you are going to be looking for another candidate. You should be aware that many people go into interviews with grand ideas. Candidates sometimes ask for the moon and hope that they can compromise on a level that is well in excess of what the employer originally wanted to pay. It is reasonable to assume that your candidate is not firm on the salary that she told you she wants. There is no doubt in my mind that candor on this matter is generally the best policy. You may find that this candidate is “playing a negotiating strategy” and you just need to level with her and say that there are limits to what you can do. Tony: I interviewed a candidate two days ago, and told him I was going to make a job offer. Now I have found a better candidate. How do I get out of this soup? The Czar: Well, if you had read this newsletter and the Leader Tips before the interview, you would have known that it is a bad idea to commit to an offer in an interview. But then, you know it now. The best advice I can give you now is…just tell the truth…you have chosen another candidate. It will embarrass you, and your organization, but you want to hire the best person for the job. Assuming that you have not made the first candidate a job offer in writing, you have no obligation to make a formal offer. Your predicament is a good example of the reason for companies—large and small—to use a written offer letter as a matter of policy. That way you will be able to say that until you have written an offer letter, there is no job offer. Send your questions to gerry@the-czar.com
| | | | | |  |  | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment