10 Nov 09 Assessment versus Evaluation

There are many things coming down the pike at this time of year for leaders in organizations. Very soon most will be doing the end-of-year performance reviews as well as goal-setting, budgeting and finalization of strategy for the next 12 months to 5 years. Each company or organization is difference so I would never be able to cover all the possible topics and not all of them would be relevant to you anyway. What I would like to do instead is use both postings this week to address two areas of end-of-year activity that apply to just about everybody. The first of these is assessment and evaluation.

The important thing about assessment and evaluation is that you need to do both. Yes, they are different, and they are different in substantial ways and they serve different purposes. This is not just hair-splitting when it comes to terminology. If you only focus on one or the other you miss an opportunity to develop your people and give them the feedback that they need to be successful.

Evaluation

This is what most leaders and managers are doing at the end of the year in terms of performance management. Evaluation is summative. By that I mean it is the result of activities that have gone on during some defined period in the past. For most organizations, this is a one-year period although some forward thinking groups make the evaluation more frequent and covering a lesser stretch of time. Evaluations are also results-oriented. They focus on what has been produced during a period of time. The findings of evaluations are judgmental. I don’t mean to say that in a negative way, just that evaluations are for the purpose of judging performance and usually determining a score or rating. From a timing standpoint, evaluations are designed as a quality-gate. In other words, they are for the purpose of giving feedback on performance in a segmented manner. For too many, this is once a year. In fact, mid-year evaluations used by many are not as much evaluations as they are corrections. If compensation and other important decisions are made based on the once-per-year function of performance evaluation, then your evaluation cycle is yearly.

Assessment

Actually, mid-year evaluations often fall into the category of assessment rather than evaluation. Assessments are ongoing and process-oriented. They check the status of progress and provide direction or correction. By process-oriented, I mean the question for an assessment discussion is “How is it going?” whereas the question for an evaluation is “How has it gone?” So assessments are formative rather than summative. They happen as performance is being conducted, not after the fact. Assessments also tend to be more flexible than evaluations. With an assessment, modifications can be made either to the development and performance of the individual, or to the desired outcomes. With evaluations, that horse has already left the barn.

The point of calling out the difference between assessment and evaluation is to realize that both are different but important. Employees and followers need feedback in both areas. From an assessment standpoint, reflection on how things are going and adjustments to the tools available or expectations are important on an ongoing basis. Assessment in this sense is not about grading…it’s about providing an honest and helpful viewpoint on the process being used by the leader or the follower in achieving objectives. Every performance management process should include ongoing assessment, but without defined evaluation periods, followers will have a “sense” of how they are doing, but will have nothing to measure their performance against.

From an evaluation standpoint, it is also important to give honest and real feedback about how effective performance has been to a certain point. For most people, this “score” is an important indication of how well they are meeting expectations. Evaluation is not coaching…it’s judging. One of the benefits of evaluation is that it marks a close to the end of a performance period. If I have been doing great, it acknowledges my performance in a positive way and gives an opportunity for us to refocus on the next evaluation period. If my performance has been poor it provides an opportunity for some pre-defined consequence and then a clean slate for the next evaluation period.

The point to take away from this. Provide both! Evaluation without assessment is just a random score that surprises our followers and provides no real direction for improvement. Assessment without evaluation is an ongoing discussion that has no end. There are no points for either rewarding or correcting poor behavior and performance. The leader who wants to give the most powerful feedback defines the opportunities and the value of both for all followers.

Tags: accountability, consistency, evaluation, expectations, feedback, performance, performance review

23 Sep 09 Moving Into the Space

This is an interesting time for many who are in leadership positions because, on the one hand, they have either recently been promoted or recently taken on greater responsibility. As a result of reorganization or restructuring, I have met many people who have been promoted even at a time where the focus of the news is on those who have been laid off from their jobs. These are the “Survivor” leaders whose career advancement is bitter sweet. They are in new areas of responsibility with new employees but at a time (and sometimes speed) that they did not anticipate.

At the same time, there are, and will be, a large number of people who have new leadership roles, not because of negative business outcomes but because their business is in recovery. As much as we are skittish about whether or not the business world is really on the mend, now a year after Lehman’s demise, business are getting their feet back under them. This requires strong management and leaders who can take new positions with authority and success.

There are plenty of challenges to making this happen but one of the most difficult to figure out is how to take the role previously filled by somebody else and make it your own. If your predecessor was a well-loved figure, you have the challenge of “filling big shoes.” If your predecessor was a jerk, you have the additional challenge of letting people know that you are not the person who was there before you. In either case, while wanting to move at a speed that does not overly disrupt the lives of employees, you also need to start making things happen. The “I’m new in this position” response is short lived because, in your new position, you are expected to deliver results. New results as a new leader.

Tip #1: Be Authentic. Even if you are following one of the greatest leaders you have ever known, the last thing you want to do is try to be that person. I have seen this effort in its extreme but most often this is an effort to simply not change anything and maintain what the person before you has started. As far as some business practices, this might be a good idea if the practices are working. But in terms of the leadership style and method of the person before you, it hardly ever works. If they were loud and outgoing and you are more reserved and introspective, don’t try to become an extrovert because they were. Most leaders who try this imitative approach fail because they simply can’t pull it off. Employees don’t expect you too either.

Tip #2: Listen. Often leaders in new roles have the unbearable urge to start “doing something” immediately in order to establish that they are not the boss.While it is likely that there are expectations that you do, indeed, get things done, there is an opportunity at the onset of a new position to listen to those who are going to be impacted by your leadership. Even if this is a leadership position in an area where you have been working for 20 years, taking the time to listen to your new followers will not only send the message that you want to make changes together, it will start to cast you in the new light of your new position. No matter the urgency, have at least a few small group or one-to-one conversations with your employees about what they see as the priority and even what advice they have for you as the leader.

Tip #3: Let your predecessor go. By this I mean there is little or nothing constructive to talk about when it comes to the person who was in the position before you. In your very first communication with your new employees it may make sense to in some way honor the person who preceded you. But that’s about it. Whether they were great or terrible, they are now in the past. Don’t participate in the inevitable employee conversations about the “old days,” and don’t let comparisons drive your behavior. It is only normal that employees will, for awhile, measure your words and behaviors against those to which they have become accustomed. But that doesn’t mean you need to. Soon enough, the past will be behind you and continuing to evoke history, or compare yourself to the one who came before, will only make that transition more difficult.

When Jeffrey Immelt took the reins of GE he told people, “There is no way I am going to out-’Jack’ Jack.” The same is true for your new role. Don’t try to outdo somebody who is no longer in the picture. Be yourself, listen to your folks, and move on. Comparisons are inevitable but they should not drive any of your behavior. The problems that you inherited are now your problems and the fact somebody else may have created them is irrelevant. It is your chance to lead and to do it as only you can do.

Tags: authenticity, congruency, consistency, expectations, Global Leadership, Leadership characteristics, leadership integrity

03 Sep 09 Efficiency as an antidote to creativity

In the last few weeks I’ve had the opportunity to talk to several leaders who find themselves stuck because of a paradigm that has been established in the last few years. This mental model goes something like this…”A leaders job is to drive efficiency because the most efficient organization will be the most successful.” The assumptions around this statement imply that the purpose of an organization is to be as efficient as possible, e.g. to operate with the greatest return on the least investment. This then turns into a focus on eliminating cost at every possible juncture.

It is true that the last decade brought about a symptom of excess for many organizations as profits soared. In my own company, the difference in what is seen as a necessary investment or expense this year is dramatically different than it was in the past. Not only are many purchases or expenses simply foregone this year, but some of the items or services that seemed like a great idea in the past are seen in the current light as either extravagant or at the least unnecessary. So these services and purchases are cancelled to provide a greater cash flow or access to resources.

The problem is, as leaders, we seem to be inevitably searching for that “one right answer” that will drive success in our organizations. With the advent of Six Sigma, Lean Operations and the like (if you don’t know, it’s o.k.), more and more activity has been spawned to “drive inefficiency out of the organization.” This can be a great effort because it lowers cost and often speeds production, but there is a dark side to efficiency of which leaders need to be aware as well. In fact, I would propose at least three areas that take a hit from this focus on efficiency and, as a result, may create problems that are greater than the ones being solved by the efficiency initiatives.

Customer Service. One of the easiest examples of the conflict between efficiency and customer service can be seen in the hotel business. I used to do a great deal of business with the Royal Park Hotel in Rochester, Michigan (the fact that I haven’t lately is no reflection on the hotel by the way!). When you pull up to this very nice and professional hotel you will always find one or two bellmen standing in the doorway and possibly a valet or two. Even if business is slow, there are probably five people on the clock serving these roles. From a cost perspective it is quite clear that at least two of these people could probably be eliminated from the payroll and the consequence of eliminating another one would likely be that wait time would go from zero minutes to perhaps 3 or 4 minutes to have your car parked or bags taken.

On the other hand, people come to the Royal Park because from the moment they pull into the hotel, they no longer have to worry about things like parking, luggage, or logistics. It is part of the customer service philosophy that sets this hotel apart from many others in the area. If they were to follow the advice of a cost-cutting expert, they would lower their cost-per-employee but they would also impact their reputation for high customer service. The result would directly impact their competitive position.

Innovation. One of the greatest consequences of overly focusing on efficiency is the loss of innovative capacity. This occurs for two reasons. First, innovation comes from the “gray area.” For employees to be innovative they have to have time to be creative and the organization has to be willing to accept a certain number (sometimes high) of failures. If a new product or service idea is a guaranteed success, it is probably not so new. Yet companies that say they have not reduced their R&D budgets still often create an atmosphere of risk aversion by cutting everything else. Fewer people, less time and less willingness to experiment are killers of creativity.

Second, leaders with a mindset of cost-cutting or process efficiency find it very hard to also have a mindset of experimentation and exploration. Followers look to their leaders to see what is true and what is not. If I talk innovation, but act always with obsessive frugality, my employees have to decide which is more important to me. Since cost-cutting by definition requires elimination, followers will find it almost impossible to be both innovative and cost averse.

Employee Morale. When efficiency rules, a mechanization of the organization tends to follow. By that I mean simply that people and their work lives begin being treated as secondary to the cost reduction needs of the company. Even if it is a fact that the elimination of positions is necessary to keep the company alive, it comes with the consequence of reduced employee morale. Innovation requires optimism and a pessimistic organizational environment can not produce strong, creative and exciting ideas very easily. While true innovation usually comes from sense of urgency, it does not come from a sense of panic. And aggressive cost cutting creates despair amongst the troops.

What is a leader to do when the organization needs both cost-cutting and innovation? For one thing, remember that the term “efficiency” is only seen as a good thing from a managerial perspective. Employees do not get jazzed by “efficiency initiatives” since this term has become corporate-speak for cost cutting. On the other hand, employees do become engaged when they feel they are working on something significant to the success of the organization. Leaders need to work on both sides of the balance sheet. Where excess is clearly the problem, then processes and resources should be cut. But leaders also need to ask themselves, “what is the ultimate consequence?” The calculation of savings has to include a factor of lost opportunity, engagement or involvement by the employees. Reducing the fat makes sense. Reducing the muscle of an organization has long term negative effects. And reducing the brain and heart will ultimately lead to a shell of the dynamic organization that you once were or could be.

Tags: accountability, consistency, efficiency, innovation, morale

10 Nov 08 Walking the Talk—Part 2 of 2

Last week I mentioned the challenges of leaders to ensure that they are seen as walking-the-talk or understood to have a strong link between their words and actions. Regardless of cultural background, industry or situation, great leaders are always perceived by their followers as consistent.

While it is always important to get input from others, some time of self-reflection can help set the stage for improved consistency and credibility. You can address these issues by considering the following:

1. Am I clear? Many times we confuse our employees about our expectations because we ourselves are not clear on what we mean. for example, “I expect us to focus on collaboration” could mean that you expect team members to work more openly with each other, with other teams, with other companies or in all three situations. Depending on background and culture of the follower, it could also mean that the objective is to work without a manager. Or it could be understood to have an underlying message that individual performance will no longer be rewarded. A team holding a variety of these interpretations could be trying to behave in very different ways.

2. Do I mean what I say? Have you fallen into the habit of explaining to your followers what you believe your expectations should be rather than what they are? As leaders in challenging times, we sometimes feel obligated to tell our employees that things will get better soon. The problem is, often we don’t know that…or perhaps don’t believe it. It is much better to be honest and brief than to be dishonest for the sake of morale. Our employees are smart people. They know when we don’t mean what we say.

3. Do I hold myself to a higher standard? Strong leaders are not only willing to behave as they expect others to behave, but they are willing to hold themselves to even higher standards than they expect of others. By establishing higher standards for yourselves than for your followers, you will find that you provide an authentic inspiration that goes well beyond simply stating the desired behavior.

4. Do I understand how I am perceived? As a popular saying goes, “It is impossible to see your own picture when you are standing in the frame.” For leaders to ensure consistency between words and actions, they must receive feedback on how they are seen by others. If you do not have a formal mechanism for getting this feedback, start soliciting it now. Be specific with your questions. Instead of “How am I being perceived,” ask “How did people feel about that statement,” or “What do you think I could do to be even more consistent?”

5. Do I truly care? The purpose of “walking-the-talk” is to reinforce positive behavior and to teach your followers how to be more successful. If you reflect on your own feelings about your followers, you will find that the only to care if you are consistent is to care about the success of your employees. If you are honest about your feelings on this, and you find that you really do not care as much as you want them to think you do, it’s time to step back and find your passion again.

True and effective leadersihp is built on trust. If your acions and your words are not in sync, followers will not trust you and results, morale and feedback will reflect this. If leadership effectiveness is important to you, then taking the time to reflect on your own consistency will be time well spent.

Tags: commitment, consistency, expectations, Global Leadership, trust