Employees in Denial

The employee who refuses to believe anything that might be remotely negative about their performance or behavior can be frustrating to say the least. That unwillingness to listen and accept something that could actually help them improve no doubt partially explains why their performance may be less than acceptable.

If denial is a pattern for an employee, it can be next to impossible to get through to them. When conducting their performance review, there is a strong likelihood they will become argumentative and try their best to confuse the issue.

The inability or unwillingness to see one's own weaknesses and skill gaps is not uncommon. Employees who fall into this category are distinctly different from those employees who take feedback well and use it to grow and achieve at new level.

The challenge with these employees is that because they are not able to get past insecurities or whatever is causing them to be in denial, it may be difficult to get them to change their behavior enough to remain on the team. This also points out why documentation of performance on an ongoing basis is so important. When employees default to denial as a defense mechanism, it's critical for the manager to have readily at hand specific examples or even a complete list of those performance "events" that relate to the ratings and comments the employee is questioning. Having these close at hand provides the opportunity to present factual supporting information that the employee may still dispute, but will have a difficult time proving to the contrary.

When an employee has a tendency toward denial, the manager should be focused on being as clear as possible and choose words carefully. Also, employees in this category often can't consume large doses of coaching in one sitting. Incremental coaching using smaller bites of information is often more effective with this type of employee. In other words, give them a tidbit to think about and then revisit that point in a follow up to determine if the employee is positively assimilating the feedback and accepting it in a way that could lead to behavioral change.

No performance review should be a surprise to an employee. But with an employee with a leaning toward denial, it is even more important to provide ongoing feedback and coaching so there is not "feedback overload" when the performance review is conducted.

Yes, employees in denial can be challenging. But with proper ongoing documentation, feedback and coaching along with a well done and well supported performance review, there is a chance that something will click with the employee and performance will improve.

The "You Serious Clark?" Look

Have you ever wondered what those looks some employees shoot your way really mean when you're conducting a performance review session? Here's our rendition of what some of the more common looks mean:

The "You don't know #%$@" look - A common look among low performers...the one with the wry little smile, arms crossed, and slightly red face. What this really means is "Oh, oh, they're on to me".

The "You Serious Clark?" look - It's the eyes wide open and slight head shake look that says "I had no idea I wasn't doing my job even though I spend hours on the Internet shopping every day".

The "I've got this in the bag" look - You know it as the lean back in the chair, head slightly cocked and slight smirk look.

The "It's the company's fault" look - Here's one most of us have seen...you know, the dilating of the eyes, red face and know-it-all grin look.

And last but not least, the "I'll play along, but couldn't disagree more" look - Yep, that one...the one where the employee tries hard to be a good soldier, but shows their disagreement by unconsciously furrowing the eyebrows, sighing heavily, and giving phoney smiles now and again.

During your upcoming review sessions, keep an eye out for any of these looks. You might get a quiet little chuckle when you spot one.

Do Disengaged Employees Impact Engaged Employees?

It's no secret that people in organizations have an impact on those around them...both positively and negatively. According to Gallup, 72% of US workers are not engaged in their work. To what extent the exact level of disengagement might be, we can't say for sure, but any material level of disengagement will affect overall results.

And, also according to Gallup, 18% of disengaged employees actually undermine the success of fellow employees....18%! So what we have here is a group of employees who who are disengaged at some level who intentionally or unintentionally wreak enough havoc among other employees that the actual impact of disengagement is much bigger than one might imagine.

Here are a few ways that could happen:

- The disengaged employees talk disparagingly enough about the company or management on a regular basis that the engaged employee starts to have doubts and becomes somewhat less engaged.
- The disengaged employee's work is sub par and/or the level of productivity is so low that other employees become irritated and blame management for allowing it or causing it to happen.
- The engaged employee's work is dependent on work performed by the disengaged employee and productivity/output of the engaged employee suffers.
- The engaged employee intentionally disrupts or sabotages the work of the engaged employee.

The bottom line is that engagement, while perhaps an overused term, is a real issue in most organizations. It's important to have a plan to minimize disengagement and to "manage out" those individuals who have a negative impact on those around them. Is that plan in place in your organization?

Value The Right Things

When it comes to evaluating employee performance, it's flat out critical to make sure that you're measuring what's really important. This seems so logical, but we'd bet good money we could walk into most organizations and find examples of performance reviews with competencies that are missing from the review and competencies that are a part of the review that have no real relevance to the job in question.

A simple job analysis for each position within the company would be a great start in identifying the duties and skills required to do the job effectively. And keep in mind that identification of the competencies to be measured relate to the job and not the individual. Sometimes, review templates appear to be created around the individual(s) holding the position rather than the job itself.

There are cultural competencies and then there are job duty-specific competencies. When we think about cultural competencies, we think about things like interpersonal relationships, self awareness, team-orientation, etc. while job duty-specific competencies are those that relate directly to completion of the job tasks.....the "technical" skills if you will. This distinction is only made to illustrate the need to focus on both "soft" and "hard" skills and to place emphasis on valuing the right things when evaluating performance.

This all leads up to the question of what your company values when it comes to evaluating performance? Is there an overemphasis on the cultural variables and not enough on the job duty-specific ones? Or are the cultural competencies lacking in the evaluation process? Undervaluing or overlooking competencies that should be measured consistently can lead to problems because improper focus for the employees occurs. They need to clearly understand what they are being measured against relative to the job at hand and relative to the "cultural requirements" of the business.

There are certain competencies that would seem to be important to most jobs if the organization values interpersonal relationships, high levels of cohesiveness, and harmony among employees. When these competencies are missing from reviews there is a strong implication that technical job related skills are paramount to success while building a team-oriented and harmonious culture are not involved in overall success. Without appropriate focus on the cultural variables, various types of conflict often set in and can run rampant.

Some studies have shown that workplace conflict forces managers to spend 30% or more of their time dealing with it and as many as 50% of employees say they get less done while fuming about conflict that can arise. And in an environment where conflict seems more prevalent, more than 35% of employees became less engaged in their work. When employees aren't evaluated against cultural related competencies in a way that makes sense, reduced productivity and engagement can be the result.

Selection of competencies to measure employees against speaks volumes about what an organization values. When you look at the competencies in play in your business, what seems to be valued?

What Feeds Cultural Differentiation

One of the overused and yet most important words used in the world of business is differentiation. There is a lot of chatter about how best to differentiate a business.

The focus tends to be on things like product features, pricing, service, and other common differentiating variables. But what many seem to not recognize is the importance of overall culture in the differentiation process.

For example, suppose a company has identified customer service as its most critical differentiating variable. That's great, but it begs some questions. How will we use customer service to differentiate us from the competition? Can our people deliver a differentiated level of service consistently? Are we really providing better service than our competition or are we just kidding ourselves? These are but a few of the legitimate questions that should be asked.

Another overused word, but perhaps even more important than differentiation is culture. For any organization to achieve and sustain differentiation, there has to be a focus on its very foundation, or culture. When we think about culture, we think in terms of "habitual organizational behavior". So we believe that how a company "behaves" day in and out can create a differentiating variable not generally thought about in the true sense of differentiation.

But how does corporate culture impact differentiation? The easiest answer lies in the belief that the evolution and achievement of a culture of excellence provides a strong foundation to achieve differentiation and can, in and of itself, provide some degree of recognizable differentiation. But how? By having in place a culture that focuses on excellence in all aspects of the business, it makes it easier to isolate and take advantage of true differentiating variables.

Let's take our example of customer service discussed above. So many businesses will tell you they provide better service than their competitors. But do they really? In most cases, it's nothing more than lip service. In a culture of excellence...one that has as its foundation habitual excellent organizational behavior...customer service would be a focal point and would be relationship-oriented, urgent in nature, responsive, and truly superior to that delivered by competitors (and likely most other businesses).

Here are a few things that feed into a culture that creates a foundation upon which differentiation can take place:

- A sense of urgency about serving customers at a very high level.
- The sharing of a common goal of excellence across the organization.
- High performing employees who understand that external relationship development is important to success.
- An understanding that everyone is accountable for results.
- A shared passion for delivering the highest quality product and/or service.
- Employees who care; who want to excel; who want the business to be highly successful; who work well together; who put their own personal agendas behind organizational goals and agendas and who clearly understand that the business can set itself apart from its competition.
- Having a plan in place that is focused on gaining a competitive advantage in various areas and that is effectively implemented and one that clearly defines and communicates the important goals of the business.

It's not easy to create a culture that allows for differentiation. And that's why it creates opportunities for those who can. Most organizations nibble around the edges of trying to get there, but can't create the whole package, so to speak. Those that do are usually very successful and are great places to work.

Reviewsnap Launches New Brand and Website!

Reviewsnap, the leading cloud-based performance management software solution, today announced the launch of its bold new brand.

A key component of Reviewsnap’s new image is its new brand mantra, “All together now.”

“Reviewsnap’s performance management system is ideal for companies that want to get everyone on the same page,” said Dave Arringdale, Reviewsnap president. “That mission is reflected in our new brand mantra. We are here to truly help, not just to provide a service.”

“At Reviewsnap, we believe performance management software needn’t be overly complex or difficult to use. The simple and intuitive layout we’ve designed in our new website reflects our belief that functional simplicity creates a very positive experience for our clients,” Arringdale said. The bold design elements in the company’s new website and logo similarly support Reviewsnap’s image as a market leader for performance management software solutions.

“What hasn’t changed at Reviewsnap is its deep commitment to excellence in understanding and serving clients at the highest level through genuine customer service and support,” Arringdale said.

As part of its heritage, Reviewsnap aims to build a true and trusting partnership with every client. “At its origins, the Reviewsnap system was developed based on feedback we solicited from the customers we would ultimately serve — human resource professionals, business consultants, managers and executives,” said Arringdale.

Reviewsnap used this unique insight to develop a complete, fully automated performance management system that offers user-friendly, reliable and affordable on-demand Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solutions that help companies:

· Align goals for greater results
· Enhance communication and coaching
· Increase employee engagement
· Save time and money with improved efficiency

“Our customers run the gamut, from very small to very large companies,” Arringdale said. “They all look to us for high-quality, on-demand human resource and business services solutions. We know we have to provide the most versatile and robust performance management solutions possible — and we do that while keeping our prices affordable and our customer service top-notch.”

Stay Current With Journal Entries For Employees

Recently we wrote about recent activity bias (recency effect). This occurs when the reviewer places too much emphasis on what the employee has done of late and fails to account for performance over the entire review period.

This is often the result of human nature, but it can be caused by a lack of information or the inability to remember specific actions or events. One aspect of performance management that is critical to helping to offset recent activity bias, but too often overlooked is ongoing documentation of employee performance. There is nothing magical about documenting performance and it is really a simple matter of memorializing specific things the employee has done or not done as they occur.

Challenges many managers have when it comes time to create a review include not remembering key performance events and not having appropriate documentation to support ratings. By creating journal entries specific to performance events as they occur, the manager has a wealth of notes to use when crafting the review.

Sound performance management systems include journaling tools that allow the creation of such notes and they provide reminders to managers so they are not forgetting to take the time to document performance. When journaling isn't done enough or at all the quality of the review can suffer.

Taking the time to document things as they happen will help reduce angst about creating a review because the documentation provides a sound basis for ratings and comments. Managers will feel better about the completed review and the review session will be more fulfilling for both the manager and the employee.

Employees Taking Advantage of The Recency Effect

Employees can be quite cunning when it comes to performance reviews. We've all seen the employee who slacks off during much of the year and then some weeks prior to their review being done, they really pick things up and work harder or become more effective.

Recent activity bias (often called recency effect) is more common during performance reviews than we might imagine. Managers see the improved work effort and/or quality and when it comes time to do the review, it tends to stand out in their mind more than the less than acceptable work done during the earlier part of the review period. This can result in higher ratings and more positive comments than the employee actually earned.

Have you ever had an employee who didn't perform all that well during much of a review period, turned it on at some point later during that period of time and then, once the review was completed, crept back into old habits? It's likely we've all observed this type of behavior.

As a manager responsible for reviewing employees, it's important to remember that the performance review covers the entire review period. Astute managers can usually discern between improved performance based on coaching, training, or a legitimate desire to get better versus a late run to enhance performance ratings and comments.

Ask yourself if the employee showed gradual improvement over the course of the review period as coaching and training took place or if there was a sudden sharp spike later in the review period. What type of improvement took place? Did the employee focus on the one key area he/she knew had been an issue and tweak behavior accordingly? Or was there improvement on a broader basis?

If you believe the employee truly had made a conscious and legitimate effort to improve performance over a period of time, particularly after being coached and/or undergoing additional training, they ratings should reflect those legitimate efforts. If, however, you believe that the improvement was too little, too late, avoid letting the recent behavior influence your ratings and comments too much.

For any employee showing improvement, that change in work behavior should be recognized. But be very careful to rate the employee on the entire "body of work", so to speak. Let them know that there has been noticeable improvement, but send the very clear message that it is important to sustain the improvement and continue to focus on improving.

If you rate an employee too high based on very recent efforts and ignore the inadequate work efforts prior to the recent behavior, the employee will feel they can get into a pattern of slacking early in the review period and then working harder later on. As you prepare a review, think about the entire review period and take the employee's efforts and results into account for the complete period. This will help avoid recent activity bias and provide a much better feedback mechanism for the employee.

Are You Measuring What Counts?

Employees need to understand what is important for them to focus on in the course of doing their jobs. That is an obvious observation.

But are the selected competencies really the most critical relative to the focus employees will place on them? In other words, will focusing on those competencies help optimize contribution to team and organizational success? Sometimes the competencies selected for measuring performance don't match the most critical elements of the job.

It helps to start with an "inventory" of the critical aspects of the job. What are the most important things involved in doing the job on a daily basis? Starting there helps easily create a list of the most crucial competencies that should be used to build performance review templates used in the review process.

Failing to identify these competencies can lead to a misplaced focus on what is really important. For example, suppose developing relationships with outside parties is a critical part of the job, but that competency shows up nowhere on the review form. The problem with not including it is that even though the employee may know he/she must do this as part of his/her job, they are not being measured against that competency. That sends a message that it may not be as important as it should be.

The point here is that you don't want to take a haphazard approach to selecting competencies. Obviously a number of competencies will cut across many or most jobs. But for some jobs, there are key competencies that the employee must be measured against.

Take a look at your various jobs and make certain the appropriate competencies are being included as part of the review process. The performance of your employees depends on measurement and measuring the proper job elements is a significant contributor to potential success.

Performance Reviews as a Roadmap for Success

At Reviewsnap, we often talk about how a performance review can take on the form of a personal business plan for individual employees. When a review combines competency measurement, goal definition and measurement, and a defined development plan for the upcoming review period, the employee has a road map for success. A business plan is really just a road map for success for the business.

We suggest making the review process more "strategic" and results-oriented than is sometimes the case. Thinking of the performance review as not only a feedback mechanism, but as a success plan will be more productive for the employee and will often yield much better results for all involved. Also, employees feel better about the process when feedback is accompanied by a legitimate and thorough plan for helping them be successful.

The first step in moving along this path is to begin moving work units toward a more complete approach to performance management in general. This represents a cultural change and will likely need to be accomplished incrementally. But graduating to this more strategic kind of approach can produce various results including, but not limited to:

- A more focused employee.
- Better engagement due to very clear goals and known support from management in terms of assisting in the employee's development.
- A platform on which the manager and employee can communicate commonly and effectively about expected results.
- Performance reviews that really have some "teeth" and review sessions that tend to be more productive and ultimately more fruitful in terms of results.
- A year-to-year plan that the employee "owns" and feels positive about being able to achieve.

Certainly effective communication on the part of the manager is important in this process, but thinking about performance reviews in a more strategic framework should produce better overall results over time.