Bringing Focus to an Appraisal Conversation

If you do nothing else, do this.

Last week, I started a conversation about performance appraisal. 

In response to the question: “How do I improve my performance evaluation process?”, I would start by asking: “What is your appetite for change?”

If the answer is some form of, “Not very big,” there are a couple of quick-hit answers that can usually move people in a desired direction.

The first thing to work on is focusing the appraisal conversation: What is the message you want to deliver to the person being appraised? To get a handle on that, look at both the results and behavior of this individual. Are they where they need to be? In other words, is this person a consistently solid performer or better?

If that’s the case, you should be preparing a positive message. Most of your people will likely be in this category.

On the other hand, if results or behavior (or both) are lacking, the message needs to be a negative one. As in, “This is what I’ve seen; there are some things that are not at acceptable levels; we need to do something about it.”

No mixing these things. No feedback sandwiches: start with something good, talk about what needs improving, and end with something positive. That approach just muddles the situation. If you feed people the sandwich, your good performers walk away feeling demoralized because they are totally focused on the negative, and those you want to give a stern message hear only the positive and think things aren’t all that bad. Exactly the opposite of what you intend.

None of this is to suggest that we all don’t have development needs, things we can be working on. That’s not what we’re talking about here. Another aspect of focusing the conversation is to have only one conversation at a time.

Because the typical performance evaluation forms and processes take into account so many things (feedback, ratings, compensation, development, coaching, to name a few), supervisors can find themselves at a disadvantage right from the start because they are expected to accomplish so many things at once. Each of these components is important and deserves its own, focused conversation.

If the prescribed process won’t allow for separating the various pieces in time and space, make sure to do so yourself during the single appraisal conversation the process dictates. Do this explicitly. Even if it means taking five minute breaks to mark transitions.

Providing this kind of support to employees is perhaps the most important part of the job of a supervisor or manager. It requires huge time and effort. Do what you can to make sure the interactions at the end achieve the intended results.

The Contribution System and Performance

It really is all about the conversation

Being focused in an conversation with another person is important most anytime, but especially during a performance review. Last time, I wrote about a couple of ways to bring more focus to an appraisal. This next step in the progression begins to move away from traditional configurations of this important institutional process.

Start by considering that an individual’s performance is part of a much larger context, or system. This can seem at cross purposes to the whole point of an appraisal, but I’d like to suggest it is a more realistic and fair way to review performance.

Ask who or what contributed to the results this person achieved. Certainly the appraisee had something to do with the way things turned out, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place. Looked at closely, however, any outcome or result has multiple contributors. They all need to be considered if what happened is going to be repeated (or avoided).

Too often, performance reviews are about parceling out blame for something that happened. This is unproductive for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that blaming usually elicits defensiveness, strong emotion, interruptions, and arguments. Not exactly the stuff of effective conversations.

Focusing on contribution can make a potentially difficult feedback conversation about performance relatively easier and more likely to be productive.

It does not let the person being reviewed off the hook. The central notion is that a number of factors that led to the outcome we are talking about, and one of these factors was the action (or inaction) of the person being reviewed. If you intend for learning and change to take place, a surer way to get there is by adopting a forward-looking, problem-solving approach to the conversation.

The original meaning of conversation, extending from the 14th century, was the act of living with, or keeping company with. It didn’t pick up the specific sense of “talk” until around 1580. Hence conversation, especially in the sense I am using it with respect to performance appraisal, implies full engagement and commitment by the two parties.

In order to do this most effectively, more frequent, shorter interactions may be helpful. The once-a-year review comes fraught with lots of noise and baggage that can make real conversation very challenging. Increasing the frequency might also lighten the record keeping burden for everyone.