Attributing Performance To The Real Causes
Managers are faced with the challenge of appraising the performance of others.?In some cases, performance can be measured based on physical output and appraised against standards that have been in place for a long time (e.g. production workers).?In others, performance can be measured by the quality of the ideas someone generates (e.g., new products designer). In some cases, performance can only be measured in terms of the quality and amount of effort (e.g., research scientist attempting to determine if the Higgs Boson exists).?One of the challenges when managing performance is to ensure that people are only held accountable for what they can control or influence. The nature of the work and the context within which it is performed should dictate how performance is defined, measured and appraised. And the causes of the results must be attributed to the correct causes and considered in an appraisal.
Performance can be appraised by evaluating outcomes relative to standards, by comparing to the output of others or by comparing outcomes to what the person is capable of, given the circumstances. There is a rich literature that includes research on how to define, measure and appraise performance effectively.?This article will focus on the process of determining why performance was what it was. Attributing performance to the real causes is a critical part of managing performance. It also is a key source of intelligence that can lead to improving an employee’s performance and utilizing the person in an optimal fashion.
What Causes Performance?
Research has found that performance is a function of ability and motivation. Each of these two factors are necessary, but not sufficient, determinants of performance. If one is missing it has a significant impact on outcomes.?A highly motivated individual lacking the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to do what is required is not likely to perform well. A highly competent individual lacking the appropriate motivation is not likely to perform well.?
Research has determined that the two best predictors of the ability to perform are native intelligence and conscientiousness. Neither of them alone has a high correlation with outcomes, but when they both are used they have strong predictive power. But the two factors only determine the potential to perform. There were a number of articles not long ago about “competency-based performance management.”?The use of that term results from failing to recognize the difference between potential and performance. Competence only establishes the potential to perform and may have little correlation with actual performance. Some very bright and capable people accomplish little, and some people with lesser capabilities accomplish a lot through sustained effort.?
During school years most people were confronted by a teacher who had decided “you can do so much better.” If a lot of effort went into the result produced this can be very frustrating. The natural reaction is to conclude the teacher has little knowledge of one’s true capacity. So judging performance based on supposed potential can result in an inaccurate appraisal. Frustration can also result when one’s performance is measured by comparing it to that of peers. When in Tae Kwon Do training, I might not be able to kick as high as a teenager but might feel good about my performance relative to what it was in the past and because I am doing my best. given my genetic structure and age.?Ranking systems use peer comparison, but in order to be effective they must use the right peers as well as the right criteria.?
Appraising performance must be based on comparison to something and it is important to measure it relative to the right basis for comparison. A common mistake is imposing forced rating distributions. Some units will have a large percentage of good performers, while others will have fewer. Forcing a distribution will often result in inaccurate appraisals, as well as exposing the organization to legal challenge. Legal precedent has found forced distribution to be arbitrary and if it has a statistically significant impact on protected classes any actions based on appraisals will be viewed as discriminatory.
The Impact of Context
Perhaps the most overlooked determinant of realized performance is the impact of the context within which work is performed on results. The destabilizing impact of the pandemic highlighted this.?There are pre-requisites that must be met if I am to perform well in a job or on some task.?I must be able to do it (have the knowledge, skills and abilities required and be provided with the required resources), be allowed to do it (have the appropriate amount of autonomy), want to do it (be motivated to extend the necessary effort and focus it on the right things), and I must know what it is (understand clearly what is required).?If one of these is absent it diminishes the chance of me performing well. The context will determine whether my potential to perform is likely to be realized.?
Doing things someone is good at is likely to positively impact performance. But there are times when it is necessary to have employees do things that do not suit their capabilities well. It is important in those situations to consider the impact of the fit between one’s capabilities and the job requirements on performance. If it is not possible to provide adequate resources (staff, time and budget) that should be taken in account when performance is appraised.?
If rewards are not proportionate to the level of performance (such as during times was pay actions are small or frozen) it is likely to diminish the drive employees have to do well. And if they do not understand clearly what is expected and how they are doing it is apt to influence their effectiveness. The current proliferation of articles about the necessary to do continuous performance measurement and feedback is warranted. Setting expectations at the start of a period, doing nothing during the period and appraising performance at the end of the period will often result in unfair appraisals and negatively impact outcomes. Rater and ratee will have different perspectives if each has to recreate the year from memory. Although sound performance appraisals are necessary to ensure fair and appropriate rewards they cannot succeed without the continuous alignment of expectations and employee priorities.
领英推荐
Performance Consistency
Some employees are “steady as a rock” and exhibit consistent performance. There are other employees whose performance if plotted on an oscilloscope would look like a Sine wave… varying from high to low. Factors like Dependability, Adherence to Policies and Attendance are used in some performance appraisal models. But the importance of each of the factors depends on the context.?
Showing up at a given time at a given place varies in importance depending on the nature of the work.?If a hair stylist does not show up for appointments, it is a problem. Call center operators need to man their work stations, since centers plan staffing levels based on the projected demand.?But a software programmer may work at different times at different places, and unless they need to attend a meeting at a specified location and time their attendance and punctuality may be irrelevant. Some employees will “reinterpret” policies, such as those dealing with punctuality and attendance, which is a polite way of saying they do not feel are relevant.?If the policies are unnecessary, they should be eliminated. The pandemic drove people out of offices into remote work locations and organizations were forced to consider that when evaluating performance.
Doing things in a specific way may be necessary, as in situations where safety is an issue. Removing a guard from a machine so it can be operated faster may provide additional incentive earnings but may also have negative consequences. However, mandating that employees do things in a specific way when there might be alternative approaches that are superior can actually lower performance.?And depriving employees of an appropriate amount of autonomy will result in dissatisfaction and diminish motivation to find the best way.
Consistency can also be based on less tangible measures. Game designers may only have 1 in 10 of the prototypes they develop succeed when offered to the marketplace.?Batting .100 in the majors will get you moved to the minor leagues (unless you are a pitcher) but creating a smash hit game every few years may still constitute star performance for a designer.?
Conclusion
Employees must accept the way their performance is defined, measured and rewarded as fair, competitive and appropriate if they are to be satisfied and motivated to contribute their best efforts to making the organization successful. Performance must be based on measuring the right things accurately, but must also attribute results to the right causes and consider the relative importance of all dimensions of performance. And appraisals must also consider the context within which work was performed and what impact it had on results.
An annual performance appraisal rating may be an average of instances where the person performed brilliantly and when they failed.?The overall rating should be made by considering the implications of good and poor performance and the consistency exhibited. If an employee performs at an Outstanding level half the time and Does Not Meet Standards level the other half that may result in an Outstanding, Meets Standards or Does Not Meet Standards summary rating. If what was done in an Outstanding manner is critical, while instances of lesser performance are less important that may result in a good rating. The rating should reflect the overall level of contribution, based on correctly attributing results to causes and considering the causes when rating performance.
About the Author:
Robert Greene, PhD, is CEO at Reward $ystems, Inc., a Consulting Principal at Pontifex and a faculty member for DePaul University in their MSHR and MBA programs. Greene speaks and teaches globally on human resource management. His consulting practice is focused on helping organizations succeed through people. Greene has written 4 books and hundreds publications and articles about human resource management throughout his career.
Order his latest book entitled "Strategic Talent Management: Creating The Right Workforce" with a promotional offer code from the publisher, Routledge available here.?