Focus on Improvement to Achieve Higher Performance

The theory is quite simple. In order to know whether there is a solution to a problem, you need to know the problem exists. Identifying the problem is usually the result of some form of measurement, ideally one that is taken periodically to contrast how these measurements change over time. So, if your problem is a less than stellar performance, one might consider investigating how to curb the tide of dismal evaluations and reinvigorate your assets to achieve bigger and better things. Solutions can arise in a variety of ways, all with the hope that during the next measurement cycle, the goals that have been pre-ordained as must-have benchmarks are within reach.

This is a very benign example for many reasons, notwithstanding the ability to apply this sort of logic to a wide array of scenarios. When we consider the dreaded HR “performance review”, some have begun to understand the rather tenuous and over-reductive nature of such logic when applied to human beings. Instances where output and productivity (read: performance) are valued, organizations often create standards to which all their talent should adhere. The unfortunate side effect is that it misses the point.

One size does not fit all

Performance standards are a brute force approach that does little to account for the diversity of people and the ways in which they learn. Providing a universal grading scheme for all employees makes some serious assumptions about the way people are evaluated. The first is that it assumes all people are of equal ability. It presupposes that given two different people with different skill levels, work ethic, resources, and time management that they will be able to achieve the same outcome.

As a practical example, let’s assume that Sandra and Lucy both work for Company B. Sandra has the fortune of being a gifted intellectual that is able to tackle complex challenges with relative ease and never has to expend a whole lot of energy to achieve an acceptable result. Lucy, through years of discipline and hard work, has developed and unrivaled work ethic and although initially does not grasp complex challenges, is never dissuaded from tackling them head-on and ultimately achieving an equally acceptable result.

Company B runs their first annual performance review for the position that Sandra and Lucy hold, with the following results: Sandra scored a 4 and Lucy scored a 2. The second and third year performance reviews produce results for Sandra and Lucy, 4 & 3; 4 & 4, respectively. Given this scenario, who is more valuable to Company B? Traditional business logic might suggest that Sandra is more valuable given that she is able to consistently provide a higher level of performance. However, Lucy is on a roll and is projected to reach a 5 in year 4, eclipsing Sandra from a performance standpoint. Lucy has consistently improved year-over-year, where Sandra has remained stagnant and given the heavy emphasis on performance standards has no motivation to go above and beyond the minimum to achieve favorable performance reviews. This can be interpreted as the difference between performance and performance growth (a.k.a improvement).

Individuals & the whole

The tendency to always choose the top performers puts the focus on individual productivity. Using this standard may result in “trimming the fat” and attracting more Sandras to the company. Instead, by focusing on improving the level of performance of the entire talent pool results in a greater level of performance overall. Enter cliché: a rising tide raises all ships.

For one, we know that it is much more costly to attract new talent than it is to nurture existing talent. Finding professional development programs that can expedite Lucy’s improvement timeline from years to months would prove to be an innovative and elegant solution. Training more employees to achieve a higher level of performance through continuous improvement is the foundation of collaborative and collective improvement across all departments, divisions, and levels. Additionally, Company B is essentially telling their employees that it is invested in their professional development which can be a major boost in employee engagement, building loyalty, trust, and intrinsic motivation. Improvement also changes the tone of communication between each level in the organization. Open communication channels that focus on solutions to problems rather than using the existence of deficits as a conversation focal point can provide non-monetary rewards in the form of recognition.

The evolution of measuring improvement

Many corporations are starting to catch on. A little more than a year ago, Microsoft decided to move away from its stacked ranking model that pitted employees against one another. This unfair assessment of employee performance was eroding morale and damaging even the highest of performers. Yet, Microsoft wasn’t the first.

Adobe abandoned its formal review process in 2012, for something they call Check-In. This is an informal conversation focused on setting expectations, giving and receiving feedback, and discussing growth and development. By creating a closer relationship between managers and employees, it is easier to engage and align them with company goals. Previous to this, Expedia revamped its processes in 2010 to reflect practices that were demonstrative of a company that existed in a fast-changing environment. With other companies like FedEx following suit, more are sure to follow.

The emphasis was placed on collecting real-time feedback on a continuous basis rather than wasting time and money performance appraisals looking at 12-month old data. If this sounds familiar, this is because the education ecosystem is starting to take note. Formalized end-of-term course and session evaluations are similar in nature to the performance review. They are an important component of how higher education institutions track all sorts of metrics, from accreditation to tenure to curriculum. The process of collecting daily feedback allows agents to “course correct” to capitalize on valuable opportunities rather than use a “rear-view mirror” approach.

For higher education and corporate entities alike, the focus should be on tracking improvement using new adaptive technologies that foster engagement and collaboration that in-turn foster retention, loyalty, and development; something we have been doing for years.