By Kristin Zehnder, CPHR

Have you ever been in a position where you are giving a performance review to an individual who seems distracted? You watch tiny beads of sweat begin to glisten on their forehead and their brows furrow with worry lines.  They seem genuinely stressed and more focused on the final measure of the review than on listening to anything else you are saying.

Can this scenario really hope to provide the ultimate comparison in rank order of who is the smartest or the best in an organization—when the stress generated is akin to high school letter grade flashback?  Or is it healthier for all parties to take it as indicator that your performance measurement is failing to create the desired outcome—collaborative and engaged performance?

Consider the Alternative
The reality for HR professionals and managers alike is that while measurement is key, ongoing clarity of communication is even more vital to creating the environment for positive outcomes.

Meet Sean. Sean is our marketing co-ordinator at Otter Co-op—who started working with us five years ago as a part-time gas bar attendant.  While we were aware that he was a student (for scheduling purposes), we didn’t know his focus of study or his career aspirations.  However, because there was a culture of open communication as a part of performance management, Sean felt comfortable speaking with his team leaders and HR about helping out in marketing.

We found out that he was in the process of completing his degree in marketing and we were able to utilize his skills as he completed his degree and continued part time work.  Once he graduated, he was promoted to our full-time marketing co-ordinator role.  He also received substantial tuition reimbursement as his education would serve the purpose of bettering our business.

On a personal note, I am proud to have Sean on our team—for who he is and what he embodies. He is an exceptional example of our professional development process and is an ambassador of our values and culture.  He is also a great example of how establishing strong, transparent communication of performance measurement methods and expectations will foster a connected and motivated corporate culture.

A Graded History of Measurement
Over the past 20 years of my career, I have had the opportunity to experience many different performance management systems and they have all shared one common denominator: measurement.  Regardless of whether the measurement is numerical (percentage-based) or descriptive (language-based), there is an innate tendency for people to equate the meaning of the measure as pass or fail even when the dimensions are designed to focus on narrative as opposed to numbers.

For example, Needs Improvement (NI), Meeting Expectations (ME) and Exceeding Expectations (EE) are common descriptive dimensions of performance measurement.  By this measure, it is fair to assume that ME and EE would be indicative of a “pass” and NI indicative of a “fail.”  Whether explained or not, there is generally a hidden numerical measurement built in, even with descriptive dimensions.

Adding Meaning to Measure
In order for performance measures to be more effective, it is important to consider three factors which add meaning to measure: communication, participation and application.

A common complaint from employees is that the method or meaning of the measure is often misunderstood, miscommunicated and/or inconsistently applied. Apprehension is often related to these factors.  When these concerns are linked to even greater concerns of livelihood, career advancement and compensation (incentives), this can spell disaster.

Communication: All too often, employees do not have a clear understanding of performance measurement—how and when the measures are applied and what it means to them.  By setting clear expectations from the commencement of employment which directly relate to the measures, employees will have a better understanding of:

• what is expected of them;
• how they are going to achieve what is expected of them;
• how they will be rewarded for meeting expectations; and
• the consequences for not meeting expectations.

Establishing and communicating clear guidelines of measurement methodology will help both employees and managers to further understand the meaning of the measure, and therefore, how it is properly assessed.  For example, are the measures values-based or productivity-based, or both?
Once expectations are clearly communicated, frequent conversations surrounding performance should be taking place. These conversations are critical in promoting a collaborative and productive culture and to minimize the risk of surprises in reviews. When performance conversations become the norm as opposed to the exception, there is a cultural shift which allows employees to feel engaged and businesses to realize hidden potential.

Participation: Simply put, a little effort goes a long way. I recently attended a training session where the facilitator compared annual reviews to dentist check-ups. Once you appreciate the connection between flossing more and seeing the dentist less, you have the ability to improve your own circumstances.

Similarly, performance management is often dreaded, and like your teeth, the more effort you apply to continuous maintenance, the better (and less painful) the outcome.  This is true for both giving and receiving performance management reviews.

Reviews are far less daunting and far more effective when measurement criteria is well communicated, widely understood and frequent coaching is evident.  When employees and managers are engaging in frequent transparent communication, and are on the same page in terms of goals and objectives and how they are measured, there should not be any “surprises” during review time.

While communication may come from the top down, participation is hinged on reciprocity of communications, so there should also be a bottom up approach as well. This gives all individuals the ability to participate and have a positive impact on their overall performance measurement.

Application: Consistent application of the measurement method brings credibility to the process. Just as fair is not always equal, what equates is not always fair.

Imagine receiving a review and scoring 12.80/15.0.  What is the significance of this number?  Is it the difference between meeting expectations and exceeding?  What would happen if it was 12.75, 12.5 or simply 12?  And is the value of 15 based on tangible measures?  What controls, if any, are being applied to subjective measures?

These factors become worrisome when the overall numerical or descriptive value is tied to an incentive or compensation plan. Is there consistent application of the values company-wide? These are important considerations particularly when there are multiple departments and managers providing reviews.

In North America, the correlation of letter grades to percentages and meaning is commonly known.  For example, an “A” would equate to a job well done where an “F” would equate to a fail. However, even here, the criterion by which an “A” is achieved can differ widely among institutions.
When the measure has no value or meaning because it is not consistently applied, communicated or understood, it becomes ineffective. This makes consistency of standards and application, and clarity of communications from day one, essential.

From Stressed to Best
Performance management as an aspect of talent management is constantly evolving as are the numerous methods of measurement.  Regardless of the method used to evaluate performance, the purpose of measurement is to evaluate performance and, ultimately, improve performance and productivity.

While many employees struggle with the thought of having their performance measured based on past or even present experiences, you have an opportunity help them see beyond the measure and unleash their true potential.  In order to make the performance measures more meaningful, a return to the trinity of “communication, participation, and application” is timely.

Regardless of size, any organization can move beyond measure as the sole focus of performance management through transparent communication of purpose, and providing opportunities for participation and ensuring consistent application of the process.

When the measure becomes effective and your performance-based conversations are frequent and inspiring, you’ll meet the Seans within your own organization.

Kristin Zehnder, BA, CPHR, is director of HR for the British Columbia-based retailer Otter Co-op.

(PeopleTalk Spring 2017)