Management Craft

Is Your Performance Mgt System Enabling or Inhibiting Agility?

I advocate a systemic approach to improving organizational agility. One system that is often created and implemented with little or no regard to how it impacts agility is performance management. How we establish goals, reinforce and evaluate performance, and define excellence is usually born from a combination of corporate goals and job descriptions.

But will that reinforce agility? Where does agility show up in your organizational systems?

• Common performance management elements that might inadvertently inhibit individual and team:
• Prescriptive goals (do this + do that= do it this way = get __ rating).
• Narrow goals (produce XX widgets).
• Predefined levels of performance for rating XX (see below for more on this one).
• Not including agility, flexibility, adaptability in goals or core competencies.

The bottom line is this - if your system rewards too much compliance or status quo, don't expect agility.

My list included a point that requires a bit more explanation. This might be controversial, but here goes: I do not think it is possible to pre-define (define at the beginning of the performance period) what "meets expectation" or "exceeds expectations" performance will be AND I don't think you should try. MANY of my clients try to do this, they want to do this (it gives them comfort), and I try to talk them out of attempting this. I assume I am not successful most of the time.

Here's the scenario. The manager defines a goal or performance standard. He (we will call the manager Jack) assumes that the standard as he has defined it corresponds to a "meets expectations" rating. This may seem reasonable to you, but I think of it as building error INTO your system.

My take: You CANNOT know what meets or exceed expectations performance will look like in January for the whole year. You do not know what challenges the performer will face (mitigating circumstances) and you cannot fully define the all important HOWs. You might say that you want Sally to manage project XYZ such that the team collaborates, but what does that look like in terms of meets expectations? You don't know and you don't want to define it. You want your performer to creatively lead the project. AND Sally deserves to be evaluated based on her efforts and results, which won't happen if you try to predefine everything.

And for those of you who are thinking, "well I only care about the deadline and financial aspects of the project," well, we need to talk. Think about what separates great performance and mediocre performance - this is almost never something you can define a year before it happens.

And one more thing - many of my clients who struggle with this idea say that their employees deserve to know what they need to do to get a meets or exceeds rating at the beginning of the year. BUNK! If you define it, you are being LESS fair and LESS accurate and LESS motivating. Let your employees know how you define excellence and that you will look at their contributions, consider a variety of information, and seek broad input abut their performance and then render an evaluation - this is your job as a manager and this is what great managers do. If you predefine things, you are basically telling your employee that you do not have a strength and capability to evaluate performance.

Thoughts? Want adaptable teams? Take a fresh look at your performance management systems and practices.

Dealing with Difficult People in Meetings

I was facilitating a meeting effectiveness class and the discussion turned to talking about how hard it is to deal with difficult people when you are the meeting leader (and perhaps NOT the difficult person's boss). We discussed several varieties of difficult behavior. Here are a few with tips for how to facilitate through these situations:

Devil's Advocate: To be clear, a devil's advocate perspective is often very helpful and should be welcomed. But some people are ALWAYS playing the devil's advocate, and this can be disruptive and bring the group down.

• Assign unlikely people to take both sides of an idea - assign devil's advocates. And assign the chronic devil's advocate to be pro-idea. Very interesting!
• Thank the person, let him or her know you have heard their concern, and ask if there are OTHER reactions, positive or negative about the idea.
• Ask the devil's advocate for suggestions on how to mitigate concerns and make the idea work more effectively.

Self-absorbed: Someone who does not like that his or her idea has not been accepted or rejoiced by the group. These are the people who toss out an idea (good), listen while others respond to the idea (good), then keep sharing the idea again and again if the idea is not embraced and accepted (not so good).

• Acknowledge that the person obviously feels very strongly about the idea. State that right now, there does not seem to be interest in moving forward with the idea but offer him or her the chance to present the idea more fully at future meeting where she should offer the pros and cons, seek feedback from diverse sources and report on that, and share more background information.
• Have the courage to say that at this time, the majority of team members do not think that the idea should be considered.
• Write the idea on a flip chart or white board so that it is clear that you heard him or her. Then move on.

When the team can't reach agreement: Sometimes there are two clear and opposing ideas and sometimes there are many ideas. But what if the team can't agree?

• Before asking for ideas, let the team know what will happen in the event they don't come to agreement. Who will decide?
• Set a time limit for deliberations - this may not be appropriate for large or important decisions.
• Acknowledge stakeholders or experts whose opinions count more (have the courage to be open about this) and let their voice weigh more heavily in the decision making.
• If appropriate for the decision, use voting, polling, force-field analysis/pros-cons, or other means to reach and agreement. Not all decisions should be left to a majority vote, however.
  

Not on same page philosophically: People in the meeting obviously have different agendas, different needs, and different measures of success.

• Ask for intent, versus positions.
• Clarify and get needs and beliefs out on the table. If the team understands what's driving each response, they can better come to a win-win outcome.
• Clarify points of agreement and then determine how differences will be resolved and who gets to decide.

If it weren't for the people, meetings would be a snap, right? But then again, they would not be meetings..... We are all such strange beings and this is what makes us wonderful and sometimes a pain in the neck. Don't let daily drama get you down, but learn ways to facilitate through the drama like a swimming through seaweed. And if you are one of these difficult people (we ALL are likely difficult some of the time) then give it a rest!

Why You Should Attend SOBCON2010 in Chicago

Disclosure - I will be there and will participate in a panel discussion, but that is not why you should attend.

There are a lot of conference to choose from, but this one has some special attributes. It is energizing, electrifying, stimulating and enriching. The people are tops and the vibe is unique - you feel like a special friend. No pretense, no pomp, no formal mumbo jumbo. You will learn a lot and feel like you took a life vitamin while learning. Really!

Case in point. Check out Terry Starbucker's post about the conference and how he and Liz are continuing to think about, and act on, the impact they want the conference to have. reading the post makes you want to go, doesn't it?

SOBCON is in Chicago from April 30-May2. I hope to see you there.

Two Great Posts for Introverts

Check out this post from Sophia of the Introvert's Corner blog called, the Solo Team Player - about reaching flow state and how introverts and extroverts might get there in different ways. As an introvert, I find flow is a much different experience, achieved from inward reflection and a creative groove. See is sophia suggest that introverts are more creative by nature.

And Dave Hatter links to 12 Tips for Shy People. And no, I am not suggesting that all introverts are shy. I am an introvert and not shy.

Organizational Agility - Is Yours?

Last week, I sent out my quarterly newsletter called Lead Well. The focus was organizational agility (you can see the whole newsletter here). I am not going to repeat the content on the blog, but wanted to pass along a quick (means ACT NOW) opportunity.

I have created an assessment that defines the systemic elements of agility. If you click on over to HERE, take five minutes to complete the assessment, you will get a summary of everyone's results by email (you will not be added to any lists, the email is just for the report). I am only going to leave the survey open another day or two, so please act now. When you get the report, you will see the many systemic practices that I think contribute to organizational agility.

For your reference, here is my definition of organizational agility.

Organizational Agility is your enterprise's capacity to be consistently adaptable without having to change.  It is the efficiency with which your organization can respond to nonstop change.

I would appreciate it if you could take the few minutes to weigh in on this survey. If you are currently working as a consultant, please take the survey with a client's organization or a previous organization in mind. Thanks so much.

Agile Planning Podcast from Johnnie Moore

My pal David Zinger alerted me to this podcast episode from smart blogger Johnnie Moore on the topic of Agile Planning. Check it out here. I have always enjoyed Johnnie's way of thinking (and his guests are equally provocative).

A couple of years ago, I did a podcast with Johnnie on the topic of inviting a challenge. Check it out here!

Confessions from a Natural-Born Starter About Follow-Through

I am one of those folks who has lots of energy and focus when starting things but who tends to quickly lose interest. I am a world class starter - but not a natural finisher. I bet many of you share this trait, too. I can count many accomplishments that I have brought to fruition, but MANY more projects that were abandoned mid-stream. Some of these efforts deserved better from me.

I have a belief that I share with many who participate in my management classes:

The difference between good or poor managers and great managers is that great managers do what others don't or won't.

One of the "things" that great managers tend to do more and more effectively is follow-through. This may seem like common sense and nothing novel enough to warrant being blogged about, but stick with me. Here's the "page 2" of this idea.

Managers who have great follow-through usually use management structures to ensure it. Every manager INTENDS to follow-through, but only those who have structured their time and work to ensure it are consistently successful.

I have been doing, studying, writing about, and training others on the art and science of management for nearly three decades and I have never been more convinced of this idea: If you want to be a great manager - become an ace at designing and using management structure (not to be confused with org. structure). Management structure includes:

• Practices
• Methods
• Habits
• Measures
• Roles
• Communicate vehicles
• How communication vehicles are designed
• Planning tools
• Management information

Intent is not enough. Don't count on motivation that invariably will be high some days and dismal on others (usually due to competing demands). I was facilitating an off site leadership team planning retreat. It was obvious to me that the group was comprised of smart and hard working professionals. They had several well done strategic plans - some short-term, some longer-term, but still reported that they lacked a cohesive plan. Each of these plans was owned and kept by different leaders and communicated to different groups at different times of the year and they were never brought together. They did not lack vision. They did not lack planning skills. In fact, their planning habits were somewhat duplicative. What they lacked was an integrated set of management structures to bring together and make use of their planning efforts.

I have seem similar situations play out with other managers. You see that you lack cohesive direction and clarity, so you get into a room and ask the same strategic questions as you did the last time. And people come to the table with similar responses and this all sounds good. But the ideas never become a part of how you manage, how you make decisions, how you communicate a clear and united plan for your organization.

What if you spent MORE planning time creating the right management structures and then filling in the plans with your great ideas? It is rarely the good ideas that are lacking - it is the structure needed to facilitate follow-through.

Management structures are the tools you have to manifest intentions. And yet we spend so little time working on this. We spend little or no time training managers how to create and use management structure.

As a natural born starter, creating and using structure is not an automatic thing for me and I have learned this slowly and kicking and screaming because I find it more fun to start things. I have to make myself think through and down the life of a project and create the structures that will keep implementation on path when my mind and energy starts to wander, get bored, or lose some of the clarity and passion that accompanies the first sparks of innovation and discovery.

How can you use management structure to produce better results? Is there a project or program that is underperforming? Imagine that I was coaching you and asked the following questions:

• What habits and practices do you have in place that will ensure your project stays on track?
• How should how you communicate - to whom, when, how - change to get results back on track?
• If you were going to create a cheat sheet designed to help you focus on what needs to be done, what would this cheat sheet look like?
• The way you have chosen to work has allowed this current level of unsatisfactory performance. The problem is not intent, not talent, not effort. What are the practices and processes that are not adequately serving your goals?

Managers - Do Your Actions Add Up?

I have been thinking about this topic of whether actions add up to produce results for a while and recorded this eight minute audio post. Check it out.

You can also download the Mp3 version of the file by clicking here.

The Next Lead Well - A Focus on Org. Agility

I will be sending out the next edition of my newsletter, called Lead Well, this coming Monday. I try to make the content of the newsletter unique to what's on the blog because I know many of you subscribe to both. If you are not currently getting the newsletter, click here to sign up. We do not use your email to spam you, we just send the quarterly newsletter.

This quarter's newsletter is focused on Organizational Agility. Articles will offer a way to look at what agility IS and IS NOT and how it differs from change management and change acceptance. I am shairng a list of questions you can use to assess your organization's agility - and how agile YOU are as an individual leader and manager. It is a meaty edition of Lead Well and I hope you sign up to receive it.

I Don't Buy it That All Employees Are Engaged

I have heard a few people assert that employees are not disengaged, they might just not be engaged in what we want. Under this scenario, the job for managers is to redirect the employee's engagement. And I think this is true for some employees and managers need to learn how to tap into their employees' engagement.

AND I also think that some employees are not engaged - not engaged in what we want, not engaged in work, not engaged in their families, not engaged in their community, not engaged in their health, not engaged period. This is a tougher management challenge because the root cause likely has nothing to do with you.

A few years back, I might have been in the "everyone is engaged" camp, but I have seen and met several folks who are not engaged in any aspect of their lives, and honestly, I have suffered a few temporary bouts of disengagement myself. It feels quite aweful.

What is a manager to do? The folks I have known have benefited from help getting their lives refocused. A few, however, were so disinterested that they did not want to make the effort to try. Does your company have resources to allow folks coaching? Have a conversation with your employees and discover if there is any way you can support them.

Health, wealth, and success - or lack of these things - can take a toll on folks and might be the cause of disengagement. As a forty-something woman, I have had suffered the usual middle age biochemical changes (lower hormones, low thyroid, sleep disturbances, vitamin D deficiency, and several other imbalances). Apparently my body thinks it is done and ready to be put out to pasture..... I share all this information not to drum up sympathy (cash and gifts are always welcome) but to highlight a common health cause of disengagement for "mature" professionals. There are other reasons and causes. And think about the toll the economy has taken on some people. And then there is seasonal depression. And, and, and.

As you know if you have read Two Weeks to a Breakthrough, I am a big supporter of taking ownership and turning things around. And even though I wrote the book about generating breakthroughs, I have sometimes struggled to get engaged - in anything.

The point of this post is to encourage managers to build the close relationships they will need to learn how they can help their employees do their best work. If you have employees who seem unengaged in most aspects of their lives, do what you can to help them get the support they need. 

Building an engaged team is worth the effort and I think it is more complex than, "they are engaged, but just not in what you want." And for those of you who question whether disengagement caused by outside factors should be of interest to managers, here is my take. The primary job of the manager is manage and lead so that their employees can, and choose to, do their best work.

What do you think? Am I full of it? Do you think all employees are engaged in something?