You can make magic with 4 hours per employee invested

Recently, I have read First, Break All the Rules by Marcus Buckingham one more time, where the author shared the results of several extensive Gallup research projects. In one of them, 80.000 managers were interviewed, many of whom led an organisational unit that significantly stuck out from the crowd in a bunch of relevant performance indicators.

They tried to figure out how the managers of outstanding, average and low performing teams differ from each other. While there were several differences, I would only like to underscore one of them in this post.

Managers of high performing units systematically apply a performance management routine, which is not at all like typical corporate performance review meetings (i.e. the annual, useless, demotivating, one-way appraisal and rating session). Instead, these managers tend to sit down for an hour every quarter with each of their team members. First, they quickly review the results of the last 3 months, discuss what went well, and then they focus on the next 3 months’ priorities for the remaining, major part of the discussion. Typical topics are:

  • What goals should be accomplished during the upcoming months?
  • Where should we step forward and how?
  • How can the manager help?

It may be surprising, that the “negatives” are not discussed here: anything that the manager is not satisfied with, let it be performance or behaviour related. Why? Because if such feedback was needed, the manager delivered it a long time ago, just after he or she observed the issue.

They do not fill out detailed and complicated appraisal forms, neither do they rate employees or force ratings into normal distribution (especially that several multinational companies have already discovered that the performance of knowledge workers are not distributed according to a bell curve). Instead, they simply discuss how the team member can best turn his or her talents, skills and knowledge into performance.

To run this routine, you need half a day per quarter, if you have 4 subordinates, a full day, if there are 8. It doesn’t seem to be unrealistic. As I have had a chance to work with lots of production managers and supervisors in the past, I know that some of them have much larger teams. Despite this, the most dedicated people managers are willing to spend half an hour with even 30-40 colleagues every three months, so such extreme situations can also work, albeit with shorter time frames. All of them were convinced that it is worth the effort. Do you think 100% of employees valued it? No, but over 90% did.

Do you invest 4 hours per person every year in the performance management of your team members? If not, then seriously, which of your job responsibilities is more important? I would be surprised if you had any, if you are entrusted to be a people manager in an organization.

Act2Manage Application

An interactive, gamification-based, practice-oriented leadership development application that provides immediate help and enables follow-up to the most common dilemmas.

Get info and request a free trial!

More blog posts:

wise owl

Fight as if you are right, listen as if you are wrong

Several studies have concluded that a sense of psychological safety is an important component of a successful team. It could be roughly described as the leader creating an environment in which team members can feel confident to speak up or get the job done without fear of being turned against if they are wrong or punished if they are wrong. A sense of psychological safety allows us to openly and frankly question beliefs, opinions or even the way we do things.
If these issues are important to us, then it is worth learning to balance confidence and doubt. In my experience, a healthy amount of self-doubt can keep us from being arrogant assholes. Or as the ancient Japanese proverb goes: we are less annoying if we keep our mouths shut. 🙂

Read more »
lajhár

Lajhárok és gazellák a munka világában

Még 2016-ban írtam egy cikket itt a Tudatos Vezetés blogon, egy 600 ezer fős nagymintás kutatás alapján arról, hogy a tudásmunkások körében a teljesítmény nem haranggörbe szerint oszlik el, hanem hatványfüggvénynek megfelelően. Ennek az a jelentősége, hogy a felső 5% hozza az összteljesítmény negyedét, a top 1% pedig az átlagnál tízszer eredményesebb. Azaz van egy szűk réteg, aki tényleg kiemelkedő, összesen legfeljebb 20%, aki még egész jó, a többiek teljesítménye ehhez képest igen szerény. Ugyanezt igazolták vissza a Google saját kutatásai is, ahol vagy kétszázezren dolgoznak, és nem szűkölködnek az adatfeldolgozási és elemzési technológiában és erőforrásokban.

Read more »