Posted on

A Simple Formula to Improve Team Performance

A Simple Formula to Improve Team Performance

“The true measure of the value of any business leader and manager is performance.” — Brian Tracy  

Have you ever wondered why one team is more productive than another or have you been part of a team that always seemed to outperform others? That very curiosity has been the root of my passion to better understand High Performance Organizations and the pursuit of Excellence.

As leaders we are always looking for opportunities to improve the performance of our teams. It turns out that there is a relatively simple formula common to all high performing teams that we call The High Performance Organization Formula™ that can help.

The formula is relatively simple and straightforward and the use of any aspect of the formula will most likely improve the performance of any team. The basic conditions and principles when leveraged through the formula provide the fundamental structure needed to allow a team to achieve more than just the sum of the individuals.

While the basics are simple, a High Performance Organization is very challenging to develop and maintain.  Achieving true high performance requires more than just following the principles of the formula. It requires understanding what drives each aspect of each principle, developing resources and providing the proper culture and environment. Through the development of this topic, we will provide the resources and training necessary to have a working knowledge of High Performing Organizations.

Secondly, the results will match the commitment. If we are not serious about developing a High Performance Organization, then the results will not deliver the true potential. People are quick to see through a lack of commitment by their leader. Conversely, most organizations are desperate to perform for leadership that believes in them and lets each person do what they do best to the best of their capability. The results are up to us.

So let’s make this simple, here is The High Performance Organization Formula™

The High Performance Organization Formula™

  • Know What Your Customer Needs
  • Have a Clear Vision of How to Meet that Need
  • Assemble a Well-rounded Team Based on Individual Strengths
  • Treat Each Person as an Individual
  • Hold Each Person Accountable and Then Get Out of the Way
  • Maintain Alignment with the Direction of the Business

There it is, a simple formula to a very complex subject. There is an enormous amount of understanding to unpack contained within each principle. Unpacking each principle and expanding our understanding along with practical approaches will be the core content of an upcoming book.

Here is a question to our community, how would you like to see this developed? Are you interested in following periodic blogs that discuss each principle? Let me know in the comments below so that I can blend it into the publication plan for this Blog for 2019.

Thanks,

Skip Gilbert

Posted on

Performance Reviews are Counterproductive (pt 4)

What we can do (pt 4)

What we can do (pt 4)

“Appreciate everything your associates do for the business. Nothing else can quite substitute for a few well-chosen, well-timed, sincere words of praise. They’re absolutely free and worth a fortune.” – Sam Walton

In the past several blog postings we have explored the failings and impact of the current approach to performance management through the performance review and compensation management practices in place at many companies large and small. We found that many businesses are stuck in the past using an approach that is over 35 years old and repeatedly failing to produce the results that the business needs.

We have cited study after study from leading authorities on performance management such as Harvard Business Review, Deloitte, McKinsey, Gallup and well-known thought leaders including Dr. W. Edwards Deming, Marcus Buckingham and others to clearly conclude that the current approach is not effective. After reviewing all of the evidence we presented and much more that is available through other sources, we can safely conclude that the current process is a waste of time, expensive and counterproductive.

So given that the current system is broken and we have a pretty good idea of how it should work, what do we do? In reality there are basically two approaches, confront the issue head-on and openly push for change or to live within the present system and adopt tactics to minimize the damage.

Head-on Approach

Let’s start with the head-on approach and openly push for change. First of all, let’s be prudent and recognize the current environment and risks. For many reasons it is difficult to challenge the current system while being subject to the impacts of the system. Many business leaders have thrived under this system. If they have usually been on the top end of the curve, they may not really understand the true impact that the system is having on the success of their business. If they have been part of an enterprise that was perceived as successful and the annual review and “stack and rank” process was part of that culture, they my not be inclined to change the “formula for success”.

There may be a perceived risk in changing the status quo; after all business has been doing it this way for years with little blowback and significant litigation (until recently). The current approach is packaged and sold as being fair, identifying high performers as well as those who need to find other opportunities, and staying within a budget. If we change, will that be admitting that the past practices were flawed and open to criticism and litigation? There will be all kinds of reasons that try to defend that the current practice is the best practice. The review process has been this way for over 35 years and it will not change easily.

It is important that we are smart about proposing this change. If we focus on the flaws in the current system those currently in-charge may be concerned that it reflects poorly on their leadership. In a twisted sort of way, if we are not careful it may get turned back on us as a performance issue if we are not careful about proposing a change. Exposing issues around systems and policies that impact compensation, retention, and advancement opportunities needs to be done thoughtfully.

The best way to avoid this dilemma is to take the high road. When discussing the need to change current policies and practices in this area, focus on the future state. After all the future state is a better place to be. Focus on the benefits of the new approach and explain how it will better serve the needs of the business (reduced waste, better feedback, higher engagement, true meritocracy).

When needing to point out the shortcomings of the current position, try not to pin those shortcomings on those currently in charge, but refer them to the work of experts in this area. Point them to the blog post on SkipGilbert.com and other authorities referenced in the previous posts. Let those authorities speak for you. We should help others stay focused on the positive. Remember the Change Formula, a strong vision and practical first steps. It will work well for you in this situation.

Also consider timing in proposing the change. A point in time that may have significant leverage will be just after completing the current review and compensation cycle. It will be fresh in everybody’s mind just how bad the current process is and how unfair their rating was, not to mention how they felt selling the results to their direct reports. At that point most people will agree that something needs to change and there is time to get something new in place before they have to do this again.

Another great time to introduce the subject of change is after the annual engagement survey results are received. Typically, as part of the survey follow-up process teams are asked to review their results and propose solutions to overcome the areas of concern. This is a great opportunity to raise the issue at the grass roots level. If this shows up in enough of the responses, it may prompt a greater awareness of the need to change.

Working Within the System

Most of us are not in a position to change the performance review and compensation management systems, policies and practices. But that does not mean that we are helpless victims of the shortcomings of the current process.

There are things we can do to minimize the damage to the performance of our teams.

Here are four things you can do right now to move in the right direction:

Posted on

Performance Reviews are Counterproductive (pt 3)

Performance Management (pt. 3)

Performance Management (pt. 3)

“Only 29% of employees “strongly agree” that their performance reviews in the workplace are fair, and even fewer — just 14% — say they’re inspired to do better thanks to their feedback” – Gallup 2017

In a previous post, we walked through a typical annual review cycle and proposed a solution that moves us from a reactive, engagement killing process to a proactive business management process. In our new process we meet with each resource on a weekly basis and have a quick conversation to ensure alignment, offer assistance, provide feedback, and then make a short note in our performance management system. In making this change we have moved from an archaic backwards view of past perception to a proactive system of engagement and leadership.

Now that we’ve tackled the annual review process, let’s look at the so-called performance management aspect of the cycle, perhaps more accurately defined as an internal business compensation management process.

The purpose of this process is to allocate rewards to meet retention and succession plans. It has little to do with managing performance. A once per year feedback session provides little opportunity to adjust behaviors and outcomes; it is just a report on past perceptions.

What is the true business need?

Let’s quickly review what the true business need is from the performance management portion of the annual review process. Going forward, let’s refer to this portion as the compensation management process because that is really what it is. (The annual review was a feedback session on performance. We have now repositioned that aspect into our weekly check-in process; we are now left with the annual merit and compensation process).

The business has two primary needs from the compensation management process, retaining its current workforce at market rates and ensuring it can meet succession needs in the future. That is it. All other associate expense and development plans spin off of those two needs.

In meeting these needs and mixed with concepts such as rewarding for greater performance, retaining top talent, attracting new talent at market rates, while staying within budget has resulted in a misguided need to stack rank employees relative to each other. Somewhere along the evolution of this process it became absolute and complicated and, in the end, not achieving its purpose at all.

So, let’s breakdown the compensation management process and look at it in more detail so that we can understand the current shortcomings and understand how to fix the system.

With the old approach the next step would be to stack rank each associate for purposes of distributing merit increases, rewarding exceptional performance, allocating development opportunities and supporting succession planning. In this process the manager would be required to rate all associates in their control from best to worst along an arbitrary scale that must result in a normal distribution performance curve. The curve must be met on a team-by-team basis, leaving no opportunity to recognize relative team performance and putting team members in competition with each other for compensation and development opportunities.  What could possibly be wrong with this approach?!

Why stack ranking is so wrong

Rater bias and lack of metrics are the primary downfall of any attempt to rate and rank employees. Studies have consistently revealed that each manager has a different perception of performance and ratings vary accordingly. One of the most complete studies ever conducted in this area was published in 2000 in the Journal of Applied Psychology. In that study in which 4,492 managers were rated on certain performance dimensions by two bosses, two peers and two subordinates found that 62% of the variances in ratings could be accounted for by individual raters’ peculiarities of perception. Actual performance accounted for only 21% of the variance. According to Marcus Buckingham, “Although it is implicitly assumed that the ratings measure the performance of the ratee, most of what is measured by the ratings is the unique rating tendencies of the rater.”

The lack of key metrics across the team is another shortcoming of this approach. Recall in our opening post about the manager being challenged to rate the performance of an employee against all others in his or her team. The challenge was that, “I do not have a consistent set of metrics that truly reflect your performance in comparison to your peers or the overall goals (assuming that you even perform the same function as they do), and so I am left with my perceptions and intuition.”

So without metrics to truly measure and compare performance, the evaluator is left with their perceptions, intuition and biases. Try as they might to be fair and even in their rating and ranking, personal bias and preferences that the evaluator may not even realize they have will impact the “fairness” of the results. A hidden bias against perceived stereotypes, personalities, physical traits, gender, race and other discriminators are now in play. All of the things listed are the nightmares of HR departments around the world, and we are using this system to allocate raises and opportunities. Yikes!

In fact, considering the inconsistencies that are possible with this approach, many major corporations are discontinuing their “rank and stack” practices given the current litigation environment. In fact, Ford and Goodyear recently settled litigation regarding the “fairness” of their practices. Troubled by possible litigation as well as costs and ethical considerations, even prior advocates for this practice have turned away from the stack ranking approach. In 2013 Microsoft ended their use of this practice. Even long-time proponents such as General Electric, Adobe and Deloitte have abandoned the practice, with Deloitte going so far as to “declare the system dead” in a Wall Street Journal opinion article.

Proper use of a performance curve

Continuing with the current process, having now created a stack ranking comparing the perceived performance of each individual relative to their teammates, it is quite common that the manager is asked to group these ratings into broad categories possibly rated one through five. These ratings are to be fit to a normal distribution curve, sometimes called a bell curve. The idea being that it will identify the top performers for additional merit and development opportunities as well as expose and penalize a group of low performers that require performance improvement or potential release from employment. The policy may dictate that no more than 10% be rated as “high performing” and 10% be rated as “needs improvement”, with everyone else being spread equally across the center of the curve.

Let’s take a look at the impact of this process in more detail:

  • First we limit the number of potential high performers. In a team of 12 – 25 employees, this limits the process to just one or two individuals. What if there are more with high potential and performance in this team? How will they react to not being recognized?
  • Secondly, we force those at the bottom of our imprecise and biased assessment system to become the absolute losers. They will not be considered for merit, advancement or development. They must change the perception of their performance before the next review period or risk loss of their employment. What if we missed it, what if they fell into one of our blind spots or biases, what if they are good performers and we just do not know them well enough?
  • The remaining group is the middle of the pack, which is more or less rated average. The policy requires splitting hairs between individual performances to make sure it fits the curve. Interesting enough, from a financial perspective, this is where the majority of the merit increase budget is spent (not on high performers), but we are splitting pennies between resources for average performance. The difference between a 2.1% and 2.2% increase is insignificant at the individual paycheck level.
  • This practice creates a class system of winners and losers, pitting the team against itself for survival. This is clearly not a cultural characteristic commonly attributed to creating teamwork or high performance organizations. The resources are now focused on internal competition rather than collaborating to focus on external threats and competition.
  • It creates an environment where associates will come to believe that their performance is not the true driver of opportunity and success. They may realize that in spite of their outstanding efforts and results they may not be recognized and possibly even penalized by being part of this group. It can certainly be a cause of higher “churn” within a team or turnover at the company level.

The net result is that this policy and approach do not yield the results the business really wants. It does not properly recognize and reward performance, creates a culture of conflict, lowers engagement and misappropriates corporate funds and opportunities.

A significant problem with the use of the bell curve as a measuring and metering tool is that it is the wrong curve. Research conducted in 2012 across 633,000 people in 198 different categories of work found that performance across 94% of these groups did not follow a normal distribution (bell curve) but rather into a power law distribution. We are more familiar with power law distributions with names like the Pareto Curve or the 80/20 rule, also referred to as “long tail” curves.

The research found that typically there is a small number of “hyper-performers” that are clearly outperforming the rest of the population and the remaining group that are simply “good performers” and that there is very little statistical difference in the performance of the good performers.

These findings are further validated by another study conducted in 2012 that concluded that the top five percent of workers in most companies outperform average ones by 400%.  In an article published in the McKinsey Quarterly in 2016 titled “Ahead of the curve: The future of performance management”draws several key conclusions from these observations:

  • “…bear in mind the bigger news about power-law distributions: what they mean for the great majority of employees. For those who meet expectations but are not exceptional, attempts to determine who is a shade better or worse yield meaningless information for managers and do little to improve performance.”
  • “The point is that such companies now think it’s a fool’s errand to identify and quantify shades of differential performance among the majority of employees, who do a good job but are not among the few stars.“

The net of these finding is that the use of the bell curve or normal distribution curve does not drive a process that meets the needs of the business. Instead a simpler approach using a power curve such as the Pareto curve (80/20) will produce much better results with less effort.  To further simplify, what we want to do is identify the top 20% that are the clear contributors and heap rewards and opportunities on this group. The balance of the group which will be the majority of the population will all receive the same base merit increases based on retaining this group at current market rates. As McKinsey points out, there is little benefit to be had in trying to identify the shades of differential performance among the majority of the employees. To do so risks evoking the unfairness of the stack ranking approach over the broader population with all of the risks that go with that approach. The 20% that are leading the pack are easy to identify and most readily accepted by all of those around them as being high performers.

For the annual merit and compensation cycle we use a performance curve that allows us to reward the clear performers and not penalize everyone else. As managers we all know the people who have made outstanding contributions and we all know those that are not performing. We do not need a complicated and discriminatory process to deal with those situations. We encourage everyone to develop their skills and potential and let their personal drive and performance sort out the achievers.

The use of the power curve approach meets the needs of the business. It achieves the goal of providing a process based on meritocracy, rewarding those producing the greatest results, without the downside of creating internal team strife and competition. It accomplishes this while being able to keep labor expenses manageable by keeping the cost of labor at market rates.

Summary

In summary, many businesses are stuck in the past using an approach that is over 35 years old and repeatedly failing to produce the results the business needs. The process requires that the entire organization becomes distracted from their core business activities to perform the annual review process, often taking months to complete at a huge expense.

The process starts with attempting to recall all of the accomplishments for each associate over the past year and summarize in self-reviews. We are then required to bundle all of this together, combine it with our comments from the performance review and hold an annual review/feedback session with each associate. Based on concepts such a pay-for-performance, meritocracy, and overall fairness, the business would smugly declare that their process effectively ties performance and reward into a tightly managed and effective process, rewarding performers, providing development for future leadership needs, delivering feedback to drive engagement, and manage associate performance.

Here is the net effect of the process according to recognized authorities on performance management:

  • “Today’s widespread ranking- and ratings-based performance management is damaging employee engagement, alienating high performers, and costing managers valuable time.” – Deloitte Insights 2014
  • “In a public survey Deloitte conducted recently, more than half the executives questioned (58%) believe that their current performance management approach drives neither employee engagement nor high performance.” – Marcus Buckingham – HBR 2015
  • “Only 16% of employees feel they benefit from their annual review; 76% don’t feel heard during reviews.”– INC Apr 2016
  • “In 2016, only 33% of employees in the United States were engaged, and employee engagement as a whole increased only 3% from 2012-2016.”– Gallup 2017 Employee Engagement Report
  • “Annual review cost estimates run from $35 Million for a 10,000 employee company ($1.2 Million for a 500 employee company).”– Accenture 2018

So let me sum this up. The typical annual performance management process is a waste of time, it is expensive and is counterproductive. Why do we still do this? If you are in executive leadership, why do you let this happen? For all of the rest of us, when are we going to express our sincere dissatisfaction with this process and push for change? If you need help with this, contact me.

Here is the next question, “so if I am not able to change the current system, how can I best operate within its limitations and do the least damage?” I think this will be a great topic for next time. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts on performance management through the annual review process.

Thanks,

Skip Gilbert

Posted on

Performance Reviews are Counterproductive (pt 2)

Performance reviews (pt. 2)

Performance Reviews are Counterproductive (pt. 2)

“Traditional performance reviews have passed their sell-by date. Big time. There’s research showing that roughly two-thirds of performance appraisals have either no effect – or a negative effect! – on employee performance.” – Dan Pink

In the previous post we laid out an argument that the performance review process currently used by many businesses is a collection of patched together policies and practices that are completely ineffective and backward. It is a big statement in itself, so let’s take a closer look at it logically and in detail.

Does this process seem familiar in some manner? As a manager of a small group of resources that is part of a larger business, I ask you once or twice a year to perform a self-review of your activity and accomplishments against an ambiguous set of annual goals handed down from Corporate. These goals are so broad they actually have little to do with your day-to-day activity. Even when these goals are narrowed to better fit your department, they are largely out of date not really reflecting the current highest priorities.

You do your best to fit your actual activity and accomplishments into these goal categories, but many are really a stretch. It is difficult to fit your activity as a trainer into the goal of improving margins on core products, but you do the best you can with it. You work through your notes and report some significant accomplishments as well as your performance against the routine portions of your position. It is really a challenge as there are so many, and they are difficult to describe in sufficient detail to others that may not understand the details of your responsibilities. Perhaps you even resort to just using bullet points to facilitate a conversation, hoping that your manager will engage in a conversation with you before moving forward with your review and performance rating.

As your manager, I am now faced with trying to recall and respond to the information you have provided and blend it with my perception of your contributions as well as the 12 to 25 other people on my team. I do the best I can to reflect and recall your contributions and find a way to reconcile with my perceptions. Here is part of my challenge, I do not have a consistent set of metrics that truly reflect your performance in comparison to your peers or the overall goals (assuming that you even perform the same function as they do), and so I am left with my perceptions and intuition.

Given the number of people in my communication circle, you and I only get a chance to talk occasionally and when we do, it is usually about a business issue that requires my assistance to resolve. We rarely have time to talk about what you are working on; after all you are a trusted team member and generally make good decisions. I do tend to talk more with those that have developed some sort of personal relationship or are working on more controversial projects, but you and I talk on occasion.

Now I am required by a misguided policy to rank my employees to fit a performance curve considering only the people of my group. Even if I am a fantastic leader and have led my group to be high performing, I must rate my people into the same curve as any other manager that may or may not be performing to the same level. By making this rating I am going to reward some and penalize others, solely based on my perception. The impact of this action may place you in a category to receive special career development opportunities, extra compensation, greater job security and a host of other benefits, all based on my perception. Conversely, this rating may place you at the bottom of the stack, denying development opportunities, lowering compensation and placing your employment at greater risk. (We will go into more discussion on performance management and performance curves in the next posting, but let’s stay focused on performance review for now.)

I make the case to my management that since my team is meeting and exceeding its goals that I do not have a group of low performers to fit the performance-rating curve. I am informed that I have no choice, my ratings must fit the curve which means that I have to penalize members of my team that I believe are truly meeting expectations or better with a lower performance rating. The only reason their rating is below acceptable is that there are too many rated acceptable or above. It has very little to do with their individual performance.

Now how do you feel when you receive your review and performance rating? If you are favored, you probably acknowledge the review and enjoy the benefits of the perceptions. If you ended up in a category that you do not agree with, how do you feel? Motivated to change or upset with a system that does not recognize your accomplishments? Do you know what kept you from being a top performer or what you could have done better? How do you feel about receiving a lower rating when you can see others on other teams are receiving a high rating and producing far less than you do? Does this raise your level of engagement?

Ever have one manager give you great reviews and the next one gives a poor review only to have the next manager go back to great reviews? There you go. This approach is arbitrary, creates inequality of opportunity, perpetuates mediocrity, and is possibly discriminatory and illegal.

Let’s try this. How about if we do away with performance reviews completely? How about if we setup a system of weekly communication where we briefly discuss what we are going to do this week and then measure ourselves against our progress and potential. How about if we set weekly goals based on current needs and require leadership to do their job and ensure work alignment?

To start with, let’s disconnect the annual or semi-annual process of the performance review from the merit compensation cycle. Let’s make the performance review a proactive every week brief conversation. The manager asks the associate, what are you working on this week? Is there anything you need? The associate asks am I meeting your need? Is there anything I could do better? That is it. It is a conversation that takes a few minutes in the week. It happens every week. The manager is ensuring that the work being performed is aligned with business needs and the associate receives guidance and feedback. Everybody knows exactly where he or she stands all of the time.

Note to associate: there will be no excuse for not knowing how you are performing. If you are unsure where you stand, it is your responsibility to ask.

Note to manager: you need to become comfortable with providing direction and direct feedback. If you are unable to do either of these, then you need to find another role. Also, this is not an excuse to micromanage the associate. Notice the question was what are you working on; it was not instructions on how to accomplish a specific task.

For the record we enter a brief summary of our weekly goals and accomplishments into our performance system and with little effort we have a rolling record of our activity and accomplishments. No need to spend days or weeks at the end of the year trying to recall and structure a picture of our accomplishments. It documents itself. The performance review has actually become a proactive management conversation between associate and their manager.

To wrap-up this segment, there is a lot more we can say about the shortcomings of the previous performance review process, such as are the managers truly qualified to evaluate their team? If a manager is rated as low performing by their manager, how does that reflect on how they rate their team? What if you are stuck with a poor performing manager, will they recognize your contribution, what does that mean for your rating? But now we are moving into the performance management aspect of the performance review cycle.

In the next segment, we will discuss performance management concepts and practices and discover that there is a better measure than the normal distribution curve and actually encourage each person to grow and prosper as they choose.  In the meantime, what are your thoughts on the performance review cycle? Is it productive or not? Please be sure to leave your comments below.

Thanks,

 

Skip Gilbert

Posted on

Performance Reviews are Counterproductive (pt 1)

It's time to make a change (pt. 1)

Performance Reviews are Counterproductive

1982 – Dr W. Edwards Deming– The Father of the Quality Evolution
“Evaluation of performance, merit rating, or annual review…the idea of a merit rating is alluring. The sound of the words captivates the imagination: pay for what you get; get what you pay for; motivate people to do their best, for their own good. The effect is exactly the opposite of what the words promise.”

2018 – Marcus Buckingham– Thought Leader of the Strengths Revolution
“…the problem with performance reviews is that they are not useful. They don’t tell us anything about the employee, they don’t help the employees get better, and they certainly aren’t giving us the correct information we need to hire, fire, train, and promote our people.”

For over 35 years the approach to performance management has been broken and it is time to fix it. We are often forced to participate in the distasteful performance review process cycle as well as having been victims of its performance crushing results. The system is counterproductive, perpetuates mediocrity, is certainly arbitrary and may be illegal. It’s time to disrupt the status quo with recognition of the problem and move forward with better solutions.

In the next several postings we will explore the failings and impact of the current approach to performance management as well as offer solutions for better results. We will look at the performance review and how it perpetuates mediocrity and limits associate development. We will expose common performance management approaches for their bias and ineffectiveness. Additionally, we will come to see that “pay for performance” is really “pay for perception”. Most importantly, we will develop solutions for a better result and discuss things we can do to bend the system until more enlightened leaders and approaches are put in place.

So why do we do performance management at all? What is its purpose? Let’s be perfectly frank, businesses operate in their own best interest. It is in the businesses’ primary interest to maximize productivity and profitability while keeping expenses manageable. Consequently the actions businesses take are to further their competitiveness and improve their profitability now and in the future. The reason that businesses are involved in performance management at all is that they believe the process will yield a net benefit in line with their primary goals.

In an era of disruptive product introductions and fierce competition, businesses are under great pressure to redesign themselves while managing declining margins and creating new products to meet new market needs. Businesses, especially service-based businesses are looking for a way to sort through their resources (their most controllable expense) and optimize capabilities for their current and future needs. Said more simply, businesses are trying to figure out who is the most productive, who has the ability to meet future business needs and how to manage the remaining resources while remaining profitable.

When we hear that businesses consider their workforce to be their greatest asset or care deeply about associate engagement and associate development, it is because they have determined that these programs are necessary to maintain or enhance their competitive advantage. They are not engaging in these activities out of a deeply altruistic perspective, but as a means to achieve their profitability goals. Businesses are interested in performance management as a means to understand their return on investment in their workforce.

Somewhere along the way in their effort to patch together tools to assess, manage and direct the development of their workforce, business assembled a collection of policies and practices that are completely ineffective and backwards. They de-motivate, are biased to the point of not being able to ensure talent continuity, reward mediocre performance, and truly place the business at risk. It is time to make a change.

In the next segment we will take a closer look at the failings of the performance review process and offer some suggestions for improvements. Have I piqued your interest? I hope so. Let me know your thoughts on this in our comments section below.

 

Thanks,

 

Skip Gilbert

Posted on

So What Now?

So What Now?

“The path from dreams to success does exist. May you have the vision to find it, the courage to get on to it, and the perseverance to follow it” — Kalpana Chawla

There comes a time where we find ourselves at a crossroads of decisions about our next steps in life. Whether professionally or personally, there are occasions when the question is “what am I going to do next?” This is not the same as the small questions of what shall we have for dinner or which movie to watch, these are the big ones, the decisions that have a major impact on us and those around us.

Most often the timing is not of our own choosing. Perhaps there has been a major change in our personal or family situation that has reached a crisis point, or perhaps the unexpected loss of employment. On a more positive note, perhaps there is a new employment opportunity, or family situation that has great potential, but requires significant change or risk. Perhaps we are suddenly unencumbered by previous constraints and now free to pursue our passion and interest. It comes back to the quote from the movie “The Untouchables” – “What are you prepared to do?”

So what do we do? Have we prepared a plan for our next steps personally and professionally or are we just drifting along and hoping for the best? Have we reviewed our passions, talents and strengths and set goals based on our vision of the future? Have we prepared so that as this crossroads approaches we can leverage it for our advantage?

If we are prepared and know where we are headed, then the impending decision can be a very exciting time. As we consider the opportunity we can measure the advantages versus the disadvantages and be in a much better position to evaluate the risk and move forward appropriately.

If we are not prepared, it is not too late but we need to get very busy quickly. We have some serious reflection and planning to do to get ourselves in a position to know how to evaluate our options and which path to pursue. There are many tools available to help us evaluate our current capabilities and market ourselves to available opportunities. A great resource to evaluate our current capabilities and identify a path forward can be found in my book “EXCELLENCE: You CAN Get There From Here!”

Here is the thing, because we find ourselves at a crossroad we have no choice but to make a decision and take action. We can either be prepared to leverage this to move in a direction that helps us achieve our life-goals or we can grab a random opportunity and hope it gets us where we want to go.  I suggest we take the path that helps us grow and prosper.

As for me, I am pursuing my future on my terms. I am fortunate enough to have the opportunity to focus on my passion; to work with you to help you become a more effective leader.

I am pleased to announce the re-launch of SkipGilbert.com as a Center of Excellence. The purpose of this Center of Excellence is to provide a GPS to guide you through the discoveries, thoughts and experiences on your journey to Excellence.

The Center of Excellence provides a portal to thought provoking and industry leading concepts and practices on Excellence, Leadership and High Performance Organizations.

The GPS tab provides access to topic-specific webinars, discussion groups as well as personal and business consulting engagements.

The Book Store provides links to reading material on leadership, excellence, and other materials to help support you on the journey.

Again it is great to be back to working with you as we move forward together pursuing Excellence in everything we do. Please feel free to offer comments and suggestions about this topic as well as reaching out to me individually to discuss mentoring and consulting opportunities.

Thanks,

 

Skip Gilbert

Posted on

Say No

4 Tips for evaluating alignment with our goals

Say No

“No is a complete sentence” – Anne Lamott

If we are going to achieve our goals, at times we will be saying no to things that might be fun, interesting or rewarding. The reality is that we simply do not have the capacity to do everything. Furthermore, we would not want to take on everything that comes our way since it may not align with our goals. There comes a time when we just have to say no. So how do we decide what to pursue and what to eliminate or postpone?

No is one of the shortest words in the English language yet it seems to be one of the hardest words to say. Ironically, it’s one of the first words we learned to say. So many things come at us at an ever-increasing pace with so many people demanding our attention it is hard to focus on what we should do. Consequently, we try to do it all. Even when attempting to apply a mental matrix of urgent vs. important, everything seems to fall into urgent and important. We find ourselves trying to please everyone and subordinating our priorities to our spare time, which disappears into exhaustion.

The net result is that our energy goes down and our stress goes up. We expend energy on things that in the end may not drive our personal satisfaction and that alone causes stress. We stress about taking on things that we know are not in alignment with our talents and what we want to accomplish. We see work being done and gain satisfaction from its completion, but not the deep-down gratification satisfaction that comes from achieving something that helps to move us forward. This is why we have goals.

Our goals serve as a filter and a compass to sort out the opportunities that align our action with the direction we planned. As we have the opportunity to start a new activity, our goals provide the guidelines that help us make a good decision for the use of our time. If the opportunity is in alignment with the planned work we had identified in our current goals, then we know that it is an opportunity that will make the best use of our time. If we cannot find alignment between the activity and our goal, then it becomes clear that we should take a pass on the proposed opportunity.

In my book “EXCELLENCE: You CAN Get There From Here!”, I lay out a complete process for developing and managing to goals. It contains both a long-term planning process to determine our direction as well as a short-term planning process to set goals and manage our progress.

This brings us full circle on this topic. If the opportunity is not in alignment with our goals, then we use the shortest sentence in the English language and just say no. This may be a hard thing to do and refusing the opportunity will certainly have an impact on the person providing the opportunity. As smart leaders we know to accomplish our goals, we will have to say no to some of the opportunities, activities and demands from our friends, family and colleagues.

Here are 4 tips for evaluating alignment with our goals:

Posted on

Beat the System

4 Tips to Beat the System

Beat the System

“A bad system will beat a good person every time” – W. Edwards Deming

Have you ever observed an organization that recruits sharp, highly energetic and motivated talent and grinds them into submission to produce mediocre results without improving the bottom line of the organization? Have you seen high potential talent join an organization with the expectation of turning the business around only to go from a reputation of success to failure? I know I have.

When we join an organization, we become a part of the overall system that produces results. The system has a structure and a culture that defines how things gets done. The culture either enables or constrains the organization’s ability to evolve and meet the needs of the business. The success of the individual is measured by the individual’s ability to operate within the culture and adapt to the norms and expectations of the organization. The organization sets the rules and evaluates the outcomes. Anyone who does not conform to the norms is considered sub-par and is expected to either improve (conform) or leave the organization. The organization sets the standard. What happens if that standard is mediocrity?

An organization is driven by the many systems or components that all interact with each other. In this systems model, components such as strategy, structure, processes, rewards and people all interact with each other to produce an organizational result. In total an organization is a big system that is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.

Dr. Deming is often cited as being the father of the quality revolution and systems-thinking in organizational design. At a time when the U.S. auto industry was suffering huge losses due to a changing economy and consumer demands, it became clear there was a need to increase quality and profitability to survive. As a result, there was a movement to adopt the principles that Dr. Deming applied in Japan, where quality and systems-thinking became the focal point of management philosophy and practices.

Dr. Deming observed that most of the troubles and possibilities for improvement add up to something like this: 94% belongs to the system and 6% to other causes. In other words, change the system to change the results; the individual has little impact.

Organizations have sophisticated defense mechanisms and the bigger the organization, the greater the ability to resist change. Overall the organization will work very hard to constrain, minimize or discredit the results of the change. Whether through lack of management support or indirectly through minimization of the impact or results, the organization will try to move back to the comfort of the status quo. Most anyone involved with driving organization change will tell us that it is rare that a new idea achieves its full potential.

So, as leaders trapped in a system, what are we to do? First and foremost, understand our situation and then focus our efforts on changing the system. Understanding our situation is critical to being able to achieve the type of success we desire. As part of the system we will be expected to operate within the norms and guidelines of the current culture. So while we have a greater vision of the possible, we will have to operate within the current system to affect change.

The good news is that changing the system has a lot of levers, not the least being the culture. Culture can be defined at a very high level as being the unwritten rules of how we do things here. Since culture is part of the system, a change to the culture will yield changes to the outcomes. Of course, change to any of the other aspects of the system including strategy, structure, processes, rewards and people will yield a net change as well. However, culture is the center of the people system that makes the organization function. Change to any portion of the system without consideration of culture will yield limited results.

To affect change in our portion of the organization our strongest play is to change the culture in our environment and then protect that culture change. The culture as we have defined it consists of the unwritten norms on how we do things here. When we start by changing the norm of expected behavior we open the door to doing things differently. For example, if we decide that building stronger teamwork will improve performance, then we would want to start by articulating and reinforcing behaviors that elevate the team above the individual.

Once the door is open for change, we can adjust the other elements of the system to support the change we are pursuing. A well-executed change supported by an enabling culture can produce significant results. A big change without the supporting culture change will inevitably invoke a reflex reaction with the system working hard to return to the status quo.

The next step is to protect the culture and elevate the results. Once we have established a new culture in our portion of the organization the challenge will be to protect it against the instinctive tendency of the larger organization to return it to its prior state. Again, being a smart leader we know that we are most effective and gain the greatest latitude when our results exceed expectations. The key is to elevate the results of our organization and continue to deliver exceptional performance as defined and recognized by the larger organization.

In the end, the performance of our organization and our performance as a leader are within our control, even in a less than optimal environment. Recognizing that we operate inside an organization that is defined by systems and cultures will help us better plan and adjust to the frustrations of organizational change.

As a final thought, consider this from Dr. Deming:

“…anytime the majority of the people behave a particular way the majority of the time, the people are not the problem. The problem is inherent in the system.”

Here are 4 tips for beating the system:

Posted on

One Day at a Time

4 Tips for achieving success one day at a time

One Day at a Time

“Every day, in every way, I’m getting better and better” — Émile Coué

Overnight success is a myth. Almost every overnight success story is really a story of persistence, overcoming doubt, and hard work. It took over two decades for Steve Jobs to be the overnight success that produced the iPhone. J.K. Rowling worked on her first novel, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” for six years and was rejected twelve times by various publishing houses before being published.

In reality, overnight success is a long story of goals and incremental execution. Success is driven by planning and then moving in the direction of the goal with small, persistent, determined activity. Each day we move forward and try to do better than the day before. We move forward in small amounts, making adjustments and keep going, building our accomplishment by combining the progress of the past with the incremental progress of today.

Our goals are important and provide a direction for our efforts; however, we execute our goals one day at a time. When we plan on achieving our goals in small amounts over a long period of time it yields an amazing result. We not only move in the direction of achieving our goal, but we get better at what we are doing with each iteration of the activity. Steve Jobs improved his ability bring consumer electronics products to market with each new idea. J.K. Rowling was a much better writer at the end of her six year journey to publication than she was at the start.

Sometimes our goals are so lofty that they feel unachievable. As an example, looking at a goal to lose 40 pounds in a year seems like an impossible task, though we know it is achievable (or we would not have set it as a SMART goal). When we consider that in order to achieve the goal we only need to lose less than one pound per week, it does not seem as impossible. In addition, as a byproduct we will also learn how to better control our diet and build our self-control.

Writing a book in a year is a reasonable goal, but also a huge undertaking. Looking at the goal in total makes it seem so impossible; it can be hard to even get started. However, when we view the activity through a smaller lens of writing just five pages per week, it becomes a less daunting task. Through repetition, we will also become a more efficient and better writer.

Consider if we focused on achieving just two percent of our total goal every week. In less than a year we would have achieved our goal and through persistent repetition improved our ability to perform that activity as well. By setting smaller repetitive activities around our larger goal we are able to accomplish a much larger goal without being overwhelmed with the immensity of the challenge. By breaking the goal down into a series of repetitive activities with a measured outcome at the end of each task, we incrementally work our way to achieving our goal and improve our efficiency along the way.

As I point out in my book “EXCELLENCE: You CAN Get There From Here!”, our journey to Excellence requires a persistence and drive to keep moving forward to achieve our goals. Our goals are important because they move us toward greater success and satisfaction. Taking an incremental approach to achieving our goals helps the impossible become possible. As the age old expression goes: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Here are 4 tips for achieving success one day at a time:

Have you ever been in the middle of a response to a crisis that turned out to not be a crisis after all? Have you ever had to go to extraordinary efforts to pull together information or provide a defense for a situation that did not really happen? Did it feel like a full emotion response to a false alarm?

In this video I will do a 2 minute summary of the blog post “Full Emotion False Alarm” on SkipGilbert.com. Join me as we take time to review a few pointers on becoming a more effective leader.