Performance Management and Appraisal
This Substack introduces you to the fourth (Leadership and Management) part of How to Succeed in the Senior Civil Service. I hope that the following extract will encourage you to read the whole of Part 4 and to suggest corrections and improvements when you have done so.
Part 4 incorporates advice from many of the best civil service managers and HR colleagues. It therefore departs significantly from civil service/HR orthodoxy. I have already quoted some of their advice when I suggested, last year, that we should abandon interviews. This extract questions the value of annual appraisals:-
Performance Management & Appraisal
None of us like to give difficult feedback, but it must be done, and it is almost always easier to give tough feedback in the moment, rather than let the moment pass. If you don't say something immediately then your colleague is likely to repeat the error. If you then criticise them for a repeat offence they will wonder why this time was different. It's even worse to save all the problems up until you have a formal meeting.
Informal appraisal is therefore very important. Blanchard & Spencer's The One Minute Manager suggests that managers should give immediate feedback whenever they see good or bad work. In the real world, unfortunately, too many managers give immediate feedback that is either always positive (and therefore dishonest) or always negative (which is debilitating). Colleagues quickly learn to appreciate the honesty of the few managers who give both sorts of feedback.
Praise is of course highly motivating. Pilita Clark:
It is hard to think of anything else that costs so little, take such a piffling amount of time, and yet achieves so much as a short e-mail or a brief chat to praise someone's work. For employees whose work is largely unseen, or only noticed when they muck up, this recognition can be seriously significant.
Negative feedback should be delivered carefully, taking great account of your relationship with the person whose performance you hope to improve.
First of all, try to frame negative feedback as friendly advice. You should also encourage your staff to ask for 'advice' rather than 'feedback'. Requests for advice tend to prompt more useful comments: actionable and focussed of the potential for improvement.
Also, if you don’t know the person too well, perhaps because they haven’t worked for you for very long, you should generally – if possible - start by offering a compliment about work done well, or simply an acknowledgement that you haven’t yet seen much of their work but … something concerns you. Some experienced managers recommend bookending or sandwich criticism – both starting and finishing with something positive. The reason for both these approaches is that, if you start with a negative, your colleague’s defences will go up and they won’t properly hear what you are saying.
But the positive comments required by the above approaches can sometimes be seen as insincere window dressing. So – if you can – try instead to engage in a tactful, honest and mature conversation which shows that you are sensitive to the other person’s feelings and genuinely want them to change/improve.
Formal Appraisal Systems
It has been known for decades that formal appraisal can do more harm than good. Academic researchers in this area generally conclude that ratings don't reveal much about the ratee, but instead reveal rather a lot about the rater.
Douglas McGregor pointed out as long ago as 1957 that managers are uncomfortable when they are put in the position of 'playing God'. Here are a couple of insights from his Harvard Business Review article.
There is always some discomfort involved in telling a subordinate they are not doing well. The individual who is “coasting” … after serving their company competently for many years presents a special dilemma to the boss who is preparing to interview them.
The conventional approach … constitutes something dangerously close to a violation of the integrity of the personality. Managers are uncomfortable when they are put in the position of “playing God.” The respect we hold for the inherent value of the individual leaves us distressed when we must take responsibility for judging the personal worth of a fellow. Yet the conventional approach to performance appraisal forces us not only to make such judgments and to see them acted upon but also to communicate them to those we have judged.
The modern emphasis upon the manager as a leader who strives to help their subordinates achieve both their own and the company’s objectives is hardly consistent with the judicial role demanded by most appraisal plans. If the manager must put on their judicial hat occasionally, they do so reluctantly and with understandable qualms. Under such conditions, it is unlikely that the subordinate will be any happier with the results than will the boss. It will not be surprising, either, if they fail to recognize that they have been told where they stand.
Of course, managers cannot escape making judgments about subordinates. Without such evaluations, salary and promotion policies cannot be administered sensibly. But are subordinates like products on an assembly line, to be accepted or rejected as a result of an inspection process?
A later February 2015 Harvard Business Review article, by Marcus Buckingham, made similar points. Here are some extracts:
How good a rater do you think you are? If you were my manager and you watched my performance for an entire year, how accurate do you think your ratings of me would be on attributes such as my “promotability” or “potential?”
How about more specific attributes such as my customer focus or my learning agility? Do you think that you’re one of those people who, with enough time spent observing me, could reliably rate these aspects of my performance on a 1-to-5 scale? And how about the people around you – your peers, direct reports, or your boss? Do you think that with enough training they could become reliable raters of you?
... The research record [unfortunately] reveals that neither you nor any of your peers are reliable raters of anyone. And as a result, virtually all of our people data is fatally flawed.
Over the last fifteen years a significant body of research has demonstrated that each of us is a disturbingly unreliable rater of other people’s performance. The effect that ruins our ability to rate others has a name: the Idiosyncratic Rater Effect, which tells us that my rating of you on a quality such as “potential” is driven not by who you are, but instead by my own idiosyncrasies—how I define “potential,” how much of it I think I have, how tough a rater I usually am. This effect is resilient — no amount of training seems able to lessen it. And it is large — on average, 61% of my rating of you is a reflection of me.
In other words, when I rate you, on anything, my rating reveals to the world far more about me than it does about you. In the world of psychometrics this effect has been well documented. The first large study was published in 1998 in Personnel Psychology; there was a second study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology in 2000; and a third confirmatory analysis appeared in 2010, again in Personnel Psychology. In each of the separate studies, the approach was the same: first ask peers, direct reports, and bosses to rate managers on a number of different performance competencies; and then examine the ratings (more than half a million of them across the three studies) to see what explained why the managers received the ratings they did. They found that more than half of the variation in a manager’s ratings could be explained by the unique rating patterns of the individual doing the rating— in the first study it was 71%, the second 58%, the third 55%.
...
And yet, is this really a surprise? You’re sitting in a year‐end meeting discussing a person and you look at their overall performance rating, and their ratings on various competencies, and you think to yourself “Really? Is this person really a ‘5’ on strategic thinking? Says who – and what did they mean by ‘strategic thinking’ anyway?” You look at the behavioural definitions of strategic thinking and you see that a “5” means that the person displayed strategic thinking “constantly” whereas a “4” is only “frequently” but still, you ask yourself, “How much weight should I really put on one manager’s ability to parse the difference between ‘constantly’ and ‘frequently’? Maybe this ‘5’ isn’t really a ‘5’. Maybe this rating isn’t real.”
And so perhaps you begin to suspect that your people data can’t be trusted. If so, these last fifteen years have proven you right. Your suspicions are well founded. And this finding must give us all pause. It means that all of the data we use to decide who should get promoted is bad data; that all of the performance appraisal data we use to determine people’s bonus pay is imprecise; and that the links we try to show between our people strategy and our business strategy — expressed in various competency models — are spurious. It means that, when it comes to our people within our organisations, we are all functionally blind. And it’s the most dangerous sort of blindness, because we are unaware of it. We think we can see.
There are solutions, I’m sure. But I think, before we can even consider those, we must first stop, take stock, and admit to ourselves that the systems we currently use to reveal our people only obscure them. This admission will challenge us. We will have to redesign almost our entire suite of talent management practices. Many of our comfortable rituals — the year-end performance review, the nine-box grid, the consensus meeting, our use of 360’s — will be forever changed. For those of us who want HR to be known as a purveyor of good data — data on which you can actually run a business — these changes cannot come soon enough.
The author provides performance management tools and training to organisations. He is the author of several best-selling books.
Commenting in 2019, Twitter's Flip Chart Rick pointed out:-
'Much of the design and re-design of performance management processes in the intervening 6 decades has been about trying to manage our discomfort. The more process and bureaucracy we put around it, the more we hope to shield ourselves from the emotional pain. Management fads and fashions come and go. Ten ratings or five? Or four? Competencies, capabilities, objectives, frameworks, all trying to do one thing. Make this whole thing look objective so we can hide our discomfort. None of it has really worked, though it has cost a lot!'
Nevertheless ...
Despite what is said above, most readers will be forced to deliver or receive formal appraisals delivered within a flawed system over which they have only limited control. Here is some advice which might help limit the damage.
First, it is important to remember that we all have different mixtures of strengths, experiences and weaknesses. Managers should not make a big deal if the appraisal system forces them to mention weaknesses that may be quite irrelevant in the current job. Equally, the person being appraised should not get too upset if a weakness is pointed out - or misunderstood - in an otherwise positive appraisal.
Second, it is often the case that a single weakness can be a major problem, and this needs to be spelt out and addressed. Too many senior officials have reached their current positions despite being inexperienced or poor managers, simply because they score well when it comes to analytical ability and the like. It would be much better for all concerned if such weaknesses were addressed early in such careers, and regarded as an absolute bar to further progress.
Third, the formal annual appraisal is essentially one-way communication. The process might begin with self-appraisal (although I have my doubts about the effectiveness of this approach) but it is essentially an opportunity for the appraiser to be honest about how the other person has appeared to them over the preceding period. The person being appraised might well feel that the appraiser is wrong, and it is fine to discuss this, but if the manager is unconvinced then it shouldn't lead to lengthy debate. Any difference of opinion can be resolved over the coming months as the staff member demonstrates their true ability to their manager. Reports do not need to be formally accepted by, or agreed with, the person being appraised, nor should they be subject to any form of formal appeal.
It is sensible, however, to show draft appraisals to the person on whom you are reporting, as you might well have forgotten some achievement, or you might have expressed something in an upsetting way. But the report should nevertheless remain your honest assessment of the other person, in comparison to others.
Fourth, (if you can) keep it simple! No-one remembers the detail of an appraisal more than a few hours after reading it. When I ran a small department, we categorised staff as very effective, effective or not effective, and this worked very well, especially if allowance was explicitly made for those who were in the process of gaining experience.
Finally, is it better if appraisals are supplemented by ‘upward feedback’ or even ‘360-degree feedback’? TL:DR? No!
There may be good systems that facilitate these processes but it must be stressed that they need to be very carefully managed if they are not to do more harm than good. They should certainly never amount to ‘upward appraisal’. Managers should want to know what messages their staff believe that they are receiving, in particular through the manager's behaviour. But it is not for staff to tell managers whether the messages are appropriate, or whether the manager is regarded as doing a good job. There may be some saints who would respond enthusiastically to criticism from inexperienced staff, but I fear that I and many others are not amongst them – at least until I have worked with my critics for a good long time.
Much the same applies to comment/feedback from peers. This can have some value as long as there is a reasonably close and effective working relationship between the reporter and reportee. But many of us work in compartments with only limited exposure to colleagues at the same level. Attendance at weekly management meetings is hardly sufficient for you to be able to make a sensible judgement on the performance of a colleague.
There is also the obvious point that even mildly negative feedback from colleagues can be very upsetting and can destroy personal relationships - and it is extremely difficult to ensure true anonymity. So - if you decide to proceed - take very great care to do it well.
Much the same applies to things like whistleblower hotlines, Chief Listening Officers and the rest. They may well be necessary in safety critical environments - but elsewhere? They are supposed to foster psychological safety and speaking up but don't they in fact send a message that this environment is so unsafe that you had better not speak out when you see a problem?
"Above and Beyond"?
Please don't expect all your staff to be driven by ambition, enjoyment, perfectionism and/or insecurity to go "above and beyond". It is absolutely fine if a majority of your staff turn up every day and do what you ask of them. You may well need to spend more management time on those who do a lot more, or a lot less. But try not to demotivate the regular workers in between.
Excellent but Not Promotable?
The rigid civil service grade structure and pay bands cause particular problems when it comes to appraising and rewarding otherwise excellent performers who, for one reason or another, would not thrive if promoted, and probably don't want to be promoted. This would include excellent policy analysts and other deep thinkers who would prefer not to manage significant numbers of staff. It would also include any technical and other experts whose specialist skills and knowledge would be wasted if promoted into a role with a much higher managerial content.
The key thing is to reassure such colleagues as often as possible that their talents are truly appreciated. They should also be given additional remuneration to match their contribution and to compensate them, so to speak, for you not being able to promote them.
This may result in those reporting to you earning as much or more than yourself. This does not matter!
Now, as an aside, here is some important advice ...
4.3.2 Bullying, Harassment & Performance Management
Dame Laura Cox QC published a report in 2018 into bullying and harassment in the Palace of Westminster. It contained some very helpful general advice and definitions, especially for managers (a) who receive complaints of bullying, or (b) who are concerned that they may be accused of bullying when trying to improve the performance of their staff. The following text (but not the Harry Venning cartoon!) is taken almost verbatim from Dame Laura’s report.
What is Bullying?
Dame Laura defines bullying in this way:
· Bullying consists of behaviour that cannot be justified by a reasonable code of conduct and has the effect of threatening, undermining, constraining, humiliating and/or harming others or their property, self-worth and/or ability to perform.
· Bullying can take the form of the abuse or misuse of power intended to cause physical, psychological or reputational harm.
· Bullying can be seen in the form of offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour.
· Bullying might be done by an individual or groups, it might be obvious or insidious, and persistent or an isolated incident.
· Bullying isn’t strictly a face-to-face phenomenon; it can also occur over the phone, by email and in other forms of writing.
· Whatever form it takes, bullying is unwarranted and unwelcome to the individual.
Note, also, that the perpetrator does not need to be aware, or intend, that their behaviour is offensive, intimidating etc.
Performance Management
Performance management is a particularly sensitive area when it comes to bullying as staff facing criticism may feel that they are being bullied by their critical manager. To this end Dame Laura's report offered sensible advice, paraphrased as follows.
· When introducing new standards of performance, a good manager will usually involve all the members of the team in agreeing them, rather than seeking to impose them without discussion and threats of disciplinary action if they are not met.
· Positive contributions and improvements in performance will be monitored, acknowledged and rewarded openly, rather than dealt with arbitrarily, involving obvious acts of favouritism, or just ignored altogether.
· Failure to achieve the required standards will be dealt with initially as a performance-improvement issue, the employee being treated with civility throughout and with the provision of appropriate support, rather than pressure to conform being exerted using sarcasm, ridicule, threats or humiliation, often in the presence of others in the team.
· An under-performing employee should know from the start that their performance is under investigation, and why, rather than learning only after the event that it has been under investigation for some time, and that disciplinary action is now imminent.
This advice is sensible but I would add that I think it unfortunate that the civil service generally refers to formal performance management warnings etc. as ‘disciplinary action’. The word 'discipline’ implies serious fault and should, I think, be reserved for genuinely bad behaviour. Under-performing staff need to have their performance managed – if necessary to the point of dismissal - but they will often have found themselves in the wrong job for their skills and experience. I don’t think that they should be ‘disciplined’.
Here are the full contents of Part 4:
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Recruitment and Interviews
4.3 Performance Management and Appraisal
4.4 Leadership
4.5 Values
4.6 Management
4.7 Strategy
4.8 Aims, Objectives, Planning and Measurement
4.9 Building Successful Teams
[Part 3 - a short paperback about Speaking Truth to Power is reduced from £7.99 to £2.99 (both +p&p) on Amazon & from the publisher until the end of this month.]
Martin Stanley