Positive Mondays 55: It is time to change the appraisal conversation

It is that time of the year again - performance appraisals.

We are now entering the most unpleasant time of the year. The time for performance appraisals. Universally loathed and considered to be most tedious exercise.

In 1954, Peter Drucker introduced a system called Management By Objectives or Key Result Areas. KRAs were designed as a tool that would lead to higher JOB SATISFACTION. He envisioned a system, where employees were empowered to hold a meaningful discussion about her performance and capabilities. It was meant to be a forum where an employee could discuss career dreams and aspirations.

The system was designed to uncover pathways to self-efficacy, growth and mastery. More often than not, it is a test match with three innings, where the third innings being largely redundant.

The first innings is about the Key Result Areas (KRAs). If you are unfortunate or fortunate to be in a function like Sales or Operations, your fate is pre-written. For better or worse. Your numbers are out there. Churned and processed by the computers. If you are in non-sales, there may be a grey area. However, again your fate is pre-ordained. Your boss knows exactly how he wants to rate you. If your boss really likes you, he might even decide to change to objectives to suit you. Maybe tweak it a bit here and a wee bit there.

So far, I do not have a problem with the conversation. It is a great conversation to have. It has withstood the test of time. I mean 62 years is a good enough time. Something is working. Some things are certainly amiss.

I reckon I would have seen around 10,000 of these documents. The KRA section is a rather sanitised version of the performance of a person. Leaders would rather keep an important document, blemish free.

Then comes the part, where the battle lines are clearly drawn. The second innings. When your competencies are being discussed. What are you good at (one minute)? What are you terrible at (one hour)? Your boss will try and downplay your strengths. Why? If he positions you as a Superwoman, you have to be promoted or given a huge bonus and an increment.

Almost like an obligation, if you are high on competence implies a promotion. This is always an interesting but hair-rippling frustrating conversation. Then theoretically there is a third innings.

The part where the developmental needs of the employee is to be discussed and documented. Usually left glaringly blank. I think it is more because, the two parties are so tired. They just call it a truce. Sign the peace agreement. The bell curve, so famously instituted by John Francis Welch Junior, is then negotiated by the powers that be.

Increments and bonuses are paid out. Everyone is grumpy with his or her bonus and uniformly infuriated with everyone else’s bonus.

A few weeks later, peace returns. The appraisal documents like a boringly drawn test match are filed away. Never to be retrieved. We are all back to being friends. Till one year.

It is time to redraw the conversation. It is time to integrate the first two innings. It is time to discuss strengths and process instead of just outcomes and numbers. It is time for explorations.

The first step is to meaningfully explore which competencies and strengths that led to high performance in the KRAs? How did the person bring her strength of innovation to come up with an alternate sales strategy? How did the leader use his strength of “attention to detail” to develop a process to track fulfillment or accuracy of order fulfillment or compliance? How did someone’s strength of “relationship builder” result in higher customer retention?

On the other hand, if there was a shortcoming in the KRAs, which competencies and strengths could have been used?

Now you are giving the employee a space to think. You are giving real input on the process. You are now exploring success formulae, which are customized to the contextual needs of the employee. Instead of being a judge, you are being an explorer or even better a fellow explorer and adventurer.

The discussion just turned “future-building” instead of just a “past-judging”.

It is more about how a nutritionist would explore a new food plan with you. Unlike a mean friend who will just keep telling you, your clothes do not fit.

Then comes the third innings of the game. The discussion of KRAs and competencies should only be a build up to the section of competency development.

First let me explain why is the third innings important.

Most employees I meet, want to do something more. They feel they have the strengths and capabilities but either their manager or their role does not allow for them to contribute. A research by Michelle Mcquaid, in the US put this number to 51%. I reckon, in India, this number would be higher.

We have a bias towards negativity and weaknesses. We are geared to look for problems and to solve them. We believe progress takes place when we overcome weaknesses. We think that fixing our weaknesses will propel us forward towards our goals. Robert Biswas-Diener in his book Positive Psychology Coaching uses the metaphor of a boat, which has sprung a leak. That hole symbolises a career threatening weakness. It needs immediate attention, otherwise your career might sink. Once you have figured out how to mend your weakness, you will find yourself in the same place. Unless you hoist your sails. The sails indicate your internal strengths. To propel the boat forward, faster than others, you need to use your strengths. Robert talks of it as USING YOUR BEST TO MAKE YOU BETTER.

The challenge is that many leaders cannot name the strengths. Many leaders believe that they are using people’s strengths. In reality we find, that they are just using one or two of their own strengths or one or two of their strengths of their team members.

Lets first explore what is a strength:Alex Linley and Susan Harrington defined a strength as a capacity for feeling, thinking and behaving in a way that allows optimal functioning in the pursuit of valued outcomes.

The PROBLEM-STRENGTH DUALITY: We often think of a problem being an outcome of a weakness. To fix a problem we need to find and fix the weakness. I used to run twelve kilometers everyday or burn 1600 calories on the cross trainer. I busted my knee. I had to stop exercising so that my knee could heal. I put on weight.

So the problem is the weight and the weakness is the knee. I waited and waited for the knee to heal, so that I could start using my strength.

My strength became my weakness. As I put on weight. I was feeling disappointed and frustrated about my knee. My thought process turned to, lets wait this out and wait for the knee to heal. The behaviour was, stop exercising.

Maybe I could have used a different strength. I could use my love of water and exercise start swimming. December 1st week, I did exactly that. I can now swim upto 40 laps in the pool. A small cold wet start.

I am mad about measurement. However, I had stopped measuring my weight. So out came the weighing scale. I even bought a new one, which declared that the earlier weighing scale was showing me a kilo less than I actually was. Bad news.

Rehan, a health fanatic, met me at Starbucks. He pointed out that coffee is a diuretic. It washes out the calcium and he said that, I needed to stop drinking coffee or tea for a week. I love chocolate, so I switched coffee for hot chocolate. In two weeks my knee works better.

Under stress, I forgot to employ my own strengths. I waited for my weakness to go away. Till I decided that my weakness had no resolution, except time. Till I outflanked it with multiple strengths. Jumping into a cold swimming pool is not exactly pleasant. But it worked. The core concept is something like this. We need to hold two orientations in our head. The problem-orientation and the strength orientation. We attack the problem using strength rather than trying to pursue mastery over a weakness.

The key would be equipping leaders with a roadmap. Ryan Niemiec has done exactly that in a model called R.O.A.D.M.A.P.

Imagine if the competency section took on this roadmap. What would the process look like? Reflect: Think of examples of how the employee overcame challenges. When the employee is at her best, which are the array of strengths being used. When the employee was challenged which strengths came to the fore. Use the problem orientation here.

Observe: Niemiec refers to being mindful of the strengths of your teams. Explore the vast range of situations and contexts in which a particular strength was used.

Appreciate: Give the strength an energizing label and appreciate the team member for the particular strength. Bring it to the conscious level. Give it importance. Give it some room to flower and flourish.

Discuss: Now allow for a free flow of communication and ideas. Maybe find out how has the strength developed. You might find some interesting insights. Discuss which strengths can be used even more. Discuss which strengths could be better applied in different situations.

Now that you are done with the ROAD, it is time to MAP the future actions. It is now best to let the employee lead the process of the strength development to the employee.

Monitor: Help the employee set up an monitoring post of their strengths deployment. Just like how an Air Traffic Controller sits at a height, monitoring all the aircraft. Help them become their own ATC. Maybe they could write down their findings for the next one-week and you could discuss them.

Ask: Your view should not be the only view. Maybe ask them to get feedback from other people. (Not the feedback which goes, “nobody wants to work with you”). Maybe they are seeing some strengths that you have missed.

Plan: Now is the time to help them set a goal. I have often seen groups become more cohesive when they are helping build on each others strengths. Maybe they can become a coach to someone? Maybe someone can become a coach to them? How else can the strength be used.

To borrow from Robert Biswas-Diener, teams that use their best, become better.

Bringing it to life: I was recently asked to address a productivity metric at a large financial institution.

The first innings – THE KRAs I asked to be shown the performance appraisals of the said leaders. There was surprise. Why do you want their appraisals? I said, “if the issue is so important, I am assuming, there is clear documentation that reflects the organizational concern”. To cut a long story short, there was none. The response came, well, the concern has been communicated through other channels.

The Second Innings – The Talents Then came the even more interesting part. I asked a simple question. What are the strengths that the high performers in the metric are brining to play? What will it take to clone them? What are the talents that are a imperative?

I asked the question, which part of the competency do you think has led to the deterioration in the metric in question. There was utmost confusion. I had to explain. Obviously if they had the relevant competencies, the leaders would have solved the problem.

Now the roadmap for the third innings is in place. Wish us luck.

To conclude, the time has come to change the tenor and tonality of the appraisal conversation. The focus of problem-strength duality presents an interesting opportunity. It is time we went back to the basics of what Peter Drucker really intended.

That the MBO program, become a cherished space of flourishing. When it is time for goal-setting, you might want to explore how the individual contributes to the success of the organisation. You might want to start from how the role matters. How the individual matters and how the unique fingerprint of the individual can make a significant difference.

If our people feel feeling nourished and nurtured, the discussion is a success. If our people feel they have an aspirational goal and an inspired role, they will give more than what you can ever imagine.

A security guard’s role is not to note down the serial number of your laptop. His role ensures that there is no physical theft of company assets. An office boy does not serve tea and water. Her work ensures that visitors who walk into the office from the hot sun are refreshed. Once they are refreshed they will be more productive. Hospital nurses take over once the doctor and the family members leave. Salesmen do not just bring revenue, they spread the purpose. Customer Service staff do not answer phones; they solve problems, increase customer advocacy and customer revenues. You need to discuss how their strengths can come to play.

The depth of our conversation and follow up will reflect our commitment to the process. Once our people figure out, trust will emerge. The process should be deemed a success if it helps lay a strong foundation on which we build trust and becoming trustworthy leaders.

The author is the founder of The Positivity Company. This is part of a series called 'Positive Mondays' which describes how positivity has a multiplicative effect, simultaneously impacting all work and life outcomes.