01 Dec 09 The Ridiculous Focus on Approval Ratings

Ok, you can probably tell by my title where this blog is going to go. I have become increasingly more fascinated at the desire that we have to measure effectiveness primarily through numbers. I’ve written on this before in a corporate setting with the idea that measures established to make the vague more concrete become overly important and allow us to ignore the not-so-measurable environmental and cultural changes that are going on around us as leaders. I don’t think we should throw out all of the numbers…I just think we get obsessed with them.

But this is not my point right now. I have noticed more and more this obsession with approval ratings. For example, there was panic a week or so ago when President Obama’s approval rating dropped below 50%. Now it is back to above 50% but the whole issue was silly because there is a 5% margin of error. In other words, we have no idea whether 45% is that much different than 55% because the range of scores is 10%.

Ok, that’s one thing, but here’s the real issue. Leaders can not lead effectively worrying about rolling approval scores. President Obama was not elected to gain public approval. He was elected to lead the nation. The same is true of every governor, mayor and other official who serves public office. Chasing public approval is like chasing employee approval…there are times when you are simply not going to have it. Why is that?

The biggest reason that approval ratings need to be put back on the shelf is that they are short-term measures. Approval ratings as published always represent an immediate and timely response at a specific moment in time. Leadership on the other hand is measured over the long term. You can’t adequately make decisions that are visionary or complex and worry about the response you will get on the day you make that decision. This is the paradox of approval ratings. When published as if they are substantial news, we get confused and concerned because we get the impression that there is something terribly wrong.

One other thing to remember about approval ratings on a large scale. The most reported ratings, those conducted by Gallup, are conducted by phoning between 3000 and 4000 people with the question, “Do you approve of leadership?” or something to that effect. It is as simple as that. In other words, the breaking news that somebody’s approval rating has dropped or risen is based on an answer given by .00001 of the population.

This is the equivalent of asking 1 person in a sell-out crowd at the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium to represent the views of the nation.

While it would be great if we could predict the effectiveness of our President or any other leader based on a simple measure of public opinion, we simply cannot. The same is true of corporate leaders or others in complex systems. There is simply too much we do not know at a given point of view and too great a diversity of opinion to ensure a valid measure. It is important that our leaders hear our views and opinions, but simply having these opinions is no reflection of the effectiveness of the leader.

What do you think?

Tags: accountability, approval ratings, communication, Global Leadership, integrity, leadership approval, performance, politics

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

30 Oct 09 Effective Leadership Presentations

There has been a lot of study and writing on the act of oral presentation so it would seem that there’s probably not much more we need to learn, eh? As leaders we know we need to “Tell em what we’re going to tell em, tell em and then tell em what we told em.” At least that’s the conventional wisdom. The problem of course is that being redundant is not only sometimes very boring it is also not a guarantee that our message will have any impact at all.

I generally have an immediate suspicion of conventional wisdom anyway. Typically it became conventional wisdom over a long period of time and is so general as to be not of much use. At the very least, conventional wisdom tends to be…well…conventional. In other words, average is not what we’re after here so perhaps we need to try a little harder. Recent evidence in brain research of participants listening to speakers gives us some ideas as to how we might make presentations to our followers more powerful. Here are three ideas for example that are not likely to be intuitive or in your basic speech workshop:

1. Focus on multiple processing: Very often leaders approach communication to groups of people as information dumps. A few charts, a bunch of numbers, and that’s about it. Then they wonder why nobody seems to remember what they said. Research however indicates that the more diversity in the presentation, not just with information but with our senses, the more likely we are to retain the information. Most speakers stick to audio and visual, but are there some ways you can bring your message alive by activity within the group. Can you pass out an object or have them engage in an activity to illustrate your point. The more ways they have to experience the information the more likely they are to retain it.

2. Be “level” with the audience: Of course we have been trained to do this through a story or joke or whatever else we throw into the introduction of the speech, but connecting with the audience is really about being a credible and trustworthy source. Be real and authentic. Avoid acting out the power position. For example, if these are employees within your company or department do you really need a formal introduction? Do your assistants really need to be visible to everybody all of the time? Come down the hierarchy for awhile and really speak with your folks.

3. Tie into existing knowledge: While every presentation should have a unique component (otherwise, why are you doing it?) participants can make meaning of your discussion more easily if it is related to stuff they already know. Whether it is a continuation of an earlier presentation, connected to current events, or even product related, it is helpful to overtly tie your new information to previously understood content. The more you can help the audience make the connection, the less cognitive effort it takes for them to figure it out on their own.

One thing stands out above all others when it comes to making presentations with impact. If you are not considering your audience in the process of creating your speech, you will not be as effective as you could be. Speaking is all about the audience. If you have others who are creating your speech, make sure that they are doing it from the perspective of the receiver. No matter how powerful a leader you are, if you stand there and tell us what you think is important, without considering what is important to us and how we can best understand the information, your presentations will fall short every time.
“>

Tags: change, commitment, communication, leadership, performance

23 Oct 09 Building a Performance Based Culture

The problem with bonus and compensation driven performance is two-fold. First, from a public relations standpoint, bonuses tick people off right now. Rightfully or wrongfully, the impression of entitlement rubs folks the wrong way as many are being laid off or having their salaries cut. To be honest, there are clearly cases where bonuses make no sense…for example in government bailed out companies where performance is not the issue, employment contracts are. Second, and more important for most leaders, monetary incentives are short-term activators. Whether you believe money motivates people or not, it does so only for a brief period. As soon as you feed the beast, it is hungry again.

The good news is that an organization based on performance does not have to be an expensive proposition. Pride is a much greater motivator than money any day. Unfortunately, because you have pride in your organization doesn’t automatically mean your employees see it the same way. Leaders tend to be leaders because they already have a drive for performance and success. Instilling this element in the culture of the organization takes an intentional effort.

For people to be committed to performance in their work, there are a few necessary elements that need to be in place:

1. A clear vision of what is to be achieved. Beyond just a laminated statement of some sort, this vision has to be of a future state with a road map and some direction for achieving the vision. If people know where they are going, and can track their progress toward those objectives, they can take ownership in the vision themselves. If the objective is not clear, or there is no way to monitor progress, followers will focus on the immediate tasks at hand only.

2. Autonomy in their work. This doesn’t mean that each employee should simply chose what they do and when they do it. Autonomy can take many forms. Depending on the nature of the job, the degree to which employees are able to make their own decisions and participate in creating their own work-world will determine how committed to this world they actually are. Lack of autonomy always means lack of accountability. If you make all the decisions about every detail, what do I have left to own.

3. Meaningful and engaging work. If the only way you can imagine the organization of your followers work is in a menial and mundane fashion, you can’t expect that your employees will be focused on performance. They might be focused on achieving a specific milestone or measure but you will have to continually reinforce the measure to get the performance. Humans are amazing creatures when it comes to adding significance to their work. If there is no significance, there is no reason to be engaged and perform.

4. A sense of community. This aspect is overlooked by many leaders trying to provide a motivational work environment, but your followers are social people. Feeling that we are all part of the same team, or that my co-workers and I share a set of values or interests, goes a long way in retention and motivation. A Performance-Based Culture is not one of individual success. It is one where our efforts to be successful are combined with those of a like mind.

Of course there is no silver bullet in establishing this mindset of performance. Leaders can’t dictate an atmosphere of camaraderie or a culture of achievement. Leaders can, however, create the circumstances that promote these elements. Focus on compensation to the point that it is fair and competitive but treat it only as one element of the workplace. Successful leaders engage their followers through interaction and relationship.

Tags: engagement, leadership integrity, performance

24 Nov 08 Facing the tough performance discussion

Recently, one of the executives I coach came to me with a dilemma. She had to talk to one of her employees about performance which (a) she always found difficult and (b) found particularly difficult at this point because times are tough. Her fear was that, getting negative feedback from her might just be enough to push the stress level of her employee through the roof.

I asked her if the poor performance was making her happy. She of course said, “No.” I then asked her if the poor performance was making her employee happy. She shook her head and said, “No, he’s miserable too. But he doesn’t see it as his problem.” Given that he’s probably also not going to improve his performance if he doesn’t see it as his problem, I felt the only thing she could do was have the conversation.

What was also interesting about this interaction was that she was not planning on firing the employee…just giving him some serious and clear feedback. Of course the dilemma this creates is that eventualy you may be forced to have the performance discussion you are avoiding but it may be at a point where the employee has no opportunity to correct or adjust their behavior. The only time to give critical feedback is now, so here are a few tips that you can follow to make your efforts more effective:

1. If you find yourself getting emotionally worked up about the discussion, take some personal time before the meeting and ask yoruself, “What is it exaclty that is causing this emotional response on my part?” If you are unclear on the exact nature of the problem, take the time to think it through before having the discussion.

2. Schedule uninterrupted time for the conversation. No checking email, answering phone calls, or allowing other disturbances during this discussion. The meeting should be in your space, or at least in a space over which you have complete control.

3. Let the other person know the subject of the conversation ahead of time. If it is a performance issue, tell them you want to discuss their performance. Difficult discussinos become even more difficult when your employee is caught completely unaware.

4. Describe not only the problem, but the impact of the problem as you see it. Be as specific as possible. If the issue is attitude, explain the impact of the attitude on the employee’s behavior and the impact on the behavior of others.

5. If you are the leader of a culturally diverse team, and the employee represents a significantly different culture than your own, seek advice from another leader who has experience in this situation. It is easy enough to be misinterpreted and your objective is to be crystal clear about the performance. Get HR advice if necessary.

6. Ask the other person for their perception of the issue and give them the opportunity to share their perception without common on your part. Silence can feel uncomfortable but let them work through the issues and explain how they see it.

7. If there is an opportunity for mutual resolution of the issue, ask the employee what he or she thinks should happen next. Let them actively participate in the solution creation.

At the end of the discussion make sure you both agree on what actions are next, what results are expected, what the followup will be and what the consequences are. As difficult as these decisions can be, they will build your credibility and improve the effectiveness and morale of the team.

Tags: diversity, feedback, leadership, performance