Performance Review Beat Down or Blueprint for Improvement?

Perspective makes all the difference.

Take a recent infographic from employee communications firm, GuideSpark, for example. At first glance, it seems to offer a pretty solid beat down of performance reviews:

• 89 percent of individuals GuideSpark surveyed don’t want their performance review feedback to be a surprise.
• 89 percent want their managers to be direct in giving performance feedback.
• 64 percent wish that their employers would focus more on their growth and development as part of their review.
• 60 percent don’t understand how their performance is measured relative to their peers.
• 56 percent say their company’s goal-setting process doesn’t help them prioritize their work.

Before you chuck your performance reviews altogether, however, consider this: these survey respondents aren’t simply grousing about what they dislike. They’re telling us exactly what we can do to improve performance reviews—and improve them in a way that will allow our people do their jobs better, grow into their full potential, and meet our expectations more effectively. These individuals are telling us precisely how we can increase their commitment and engagement levels and motivate them to accomplish more.

In other words, this data is a good thing, shedding light on how we can transform our employees’ revulsion toward performance reviews into rapture. It’s a matter of perspective.

For our money, these individuals aren’t saying, “Do away with performance appraisals.” They’re saying, “Here’s how to do my appraisal right.”

The question is … are we listening?

~

Connect with the individuals and sources highlighted in this post by clicking the links below:

@GuideSpark  

Performance or Engagement? And the Winner Is …

As with just about every aspect of performance management, opinions are divided on the question of whether managers should focus on the performance or the engagement level of their people.

Those on the performance side of the debate say that performance-oriented managers drive bottom-line benefits such as profitability, market share and competitive dominance by helping their people achieve specific performance goals and remain closely aligned to the company’s/department’s objectives. Those on the engagement side of the debate say that engagement-focused managers help reduce costly turnover and increase employee productivity and loyalty by sustaining high levels of employee motivation and discretionary effort.

Both sides make sense. So what’s the right choice?

Well, a Gallup survey of more than 8,000 employees shows that we really shouldn’t make a choice at all. The best managers focus on both performance and engagement.

According to an article published just weeks ago in the Gallup Business Journal, the most successful managers are “strengths-based, engagement-focused, and performance-oriented. ... Managers who emphasize one approach while ignoring the other risk alienating their team members, lowering engagement, and damaging performance.”

The article goes on to tell managers how to enhance performance by focusing on employee engagement and how to enhance engagement by focusing on performance. “A team will never reach its full potential until it has a manager that is both performance-oriented and engagement-focused,” it states.

Focusing on both performance and engagement will require some managers to rethink their leadership strategies and tactics. For example, they might want to revisit how frequently they meet with employees. As we’ve written in the past, more frequent meetings help managers ensure their teams always perform at a high level by sharing specific, real-time feedback—what they’re doing well, what needs to be improved, and what they can do to advance their careers.

More frequent meetings also pay engagement dividends. As the Gallup article states, “On average, only 15% of employees who work for a manager who does not meet with them regularly are engaged; managers who regularly meet with their employees almost tripled that level of engagement.” These managers always know what their employees enjoy doing, what they’d like to do more or less of, and what they hope to be doing in the future.

Bottom line, when managers focus on both performance and engagement, the winner is … everyone.

Revisiting Employee Motivation … and the Power of a Single Word

Part of the challenge of managing people is learning how to motivate them.

In a previous post, we asked, “Is Employee Motivation Increasingly Beyond Our Control?,” citing research that claims employees are less motivated by traditional extrinsic rewards (raises, bonuses, promotions, etc.) and increasingly motivated by intrinsic rewards (an internal sense of achievement and satisfaction) that can’t be handed out by employers.

The good news is that motivating employees to greater levels of achievement is definitely not beyond our control, and both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards can be powerful motivational tools. But it’s important to remember that motivation isn’t driven by “rewards” alone.

A recent post on the Harvard Business Review blog site tells us that “Managers Can Motivate Employees with One Word.” That word is … together.

The post’s author, Heidi Grant Halvorson, quotes new findings from researchers at Stanford University who brought people together in small groups, then separated them to work alone on challenging puzzles. But the researchers also did something quite fascinating: they told a portion of these individuals that they would be working on their puzzles together, despite being in different rooms. These people were also told they would receive a tip at some point from a team member to help them solve their puzzle. The researchers categorized these individuals as “psychologically together.”

For the other portion of individuals in this study—the ones who made up the “psychologically alone” category—researchers made no mention of the word “together,” and these people were told that a researcher would provide them with a helpful tip at some point. As Halvorson notes, “All the participants were in fact working alone on the puzzles. The only real difference was the feeling that being told they were working ‘together’ might create.”

And what a difference it was. Halvorson reports that “participants in the psychologically together category worked 48% longer, solved more problems correctly, and had better recall for what they had seen. They also said that they felt less tired and depleted by the task. They also reported finding the puzzle more interesting when working together.” The word “together” signals to employees that they’re connected to others they can trust and who are working with them toward the same goal.

Halvorson goes on to urge managers “to make use of this word with far greater frequency … Let ‘together’ be a constant reminder to your employees that they are not alone, helping them to motivate them to perform their very best.”

Let’s be clear: Halvorson isn’t advocating that managers use the word “together” as a ruse or a way of tricking employees into feeling a sense of connectedness that doesn’t exist. This cannot be a hollow gesture. Managers must actually be team builders, nurturing work environments that promote collaboration and teamwork. They must also model the right behaviors. Only within such an environment can the word “together” have real impact.

For managers looking to enhance their teams and work environments, a recent Fortune article offers some real-world inspiration. In “Five Secrets To Building Killer Teams,” seasoned leaders offer personal insights into how they’ve tackled the challenge. They recommend actions such as “Throw out the hierarchy,” “Be forthright,” and “Seek out non-traditional diversity.”

The word “together” can make a big difference when it comes to motivating our people. But we have to earn the right to use it. Once we do, we should follow Halvorson’s advice and use it often.

Is Employee Motivation Increasingly Beyond Our Control?

When it comes to motivating employees, some employers feel a growing sense of helplessness.

It stems from a body of research showing employees are less and less motivated by the traditional extrinsic rewards that employers control and dispense with relative ease—raises, bonuses, promotions, etc. Instead, this research shows, workers are increasingly motivated by intrinsic rewards—the internal sense of achievement and satisfaction people feel from doing meaningful work and making contributions that are valued by their organizations.

Daniel Pink’s bestselling book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, has been used for years in the business world to support the contention that intrinsic rewards are top dog in motivating employees.

Kenneth Thomas also made a case for intrinsic rewards in his book, Intrinsic Motivation at Work: What Really Drives Employee Engagement. In a piece Thomas wrote for the Ivey Business Journal, he identified the four intrinsic rewards that have the greatest impact on employee motivation:

1. A sense of meaningfulness—employees feeling as though they have opportunities to accomplish something of real value.

2. A sense of choice—employees feeling free to choose how they accomplish their work.

3. A sense of competence—employees feeling as though they’re doing good, high-quality work.

4. A sense of progress—employees feeling that their work is on track and moving in the right direction.

Despite the deeply internal and personal nature of these intrinsic motivators, it’s crucial to note that employers have a strong impact on all of them.

Look at the list again. Employees don’t simply “feel” these things in a vacuum. They feel them in the context of the work environments we provide. From an organizational perspective, we either nurture or stifle these intrinsic motivators through the types of cultures we build and the people practices we put in place.

Our supervisors and managers also have a tremendous impact on intrinsic motivators. After all, they interact with employees on a daily basis, which means the support and guidance they provide (or fail to provide) will color an employee’s internal impressions to a great degree.

The truth is the debate on intrinsic and extrinsic rewards doesn’t have to be an either/or proposition. As Thomas himself pointed out, no matter how powerful intrinsic rewards are, “extrinsic rewards remain significant for workers.” In other words, financial rewards, benefits, paid vacations, and career advancement are all tied to an employee’s “sense” of worth and fulfillment—and to their motivation—just as surely as the intrinsic rewards listed above.

Yes, intrinsic motivation is very much an internal matter for our employees. But let’s not kid ourselves. We influence their internal landscape—and that’s good news because it means we needn’t feel helpless when it comes to motivating them. No matter which set of rewards are more effective—intrinsic or extrinsic—neither are completely beyond our control.