We typically view performance management as a process. Goals describe expected outcomes and (in enlightened firms) values set out desired behaviours. These imperatives of what and how are captured in sets of rules: individuals are surveilled, evaluated against the rules, then rewarded or penalised for their ‘performance’.
Production-line work
The system sufficed when the economy revolved around production-line activity and managers could specify activities and results with little ambiguity: screw widget A on to widget B six times an hour and we shall pay you 10 pounds 17 shillings and 5 pence a week (the average industrial wage in 1955).
Today’s work
Today work is more complex. We expect employees to make decisions as they go along, responding to customer demands and/or novel situations. Diverse factors – calls for employee wellbeing and autonomy, risk management, and new technologies, for example – mean that work activities can no longer be prescribed in advance.
Non-stop change often causes proven performance tactics to become outdated. Moreover, division of labour across global value chains means that an individual’s efforts dictate, and are dictated by, the work of others. Good performance is both variable and collective.
Failure of bureaucratic management
Shifts in the nature of work make performance management as a process an ineffective method for securing desired results. Simplistic and largely fixed rules, alongside surveillance and rewards, constrain individuals and limit the potential of their work.
How relationships augment performance
What, then, if we view performance management not as a process but as a relationship? Relationships describe how human beings interact with each other and so are the number one – albeit silent and overlooked – factor in performance across complex environments. After all, who today truly works alone?
Let us examine how the ethos of both systems plays out in practice. Joseph is an employee of Red Tape Unlimited, where performance management emphasises a bureaucratic process. Mary works for Magic Better, where performance management is first a question of relationships.
Motivation
Process and rules designed to govern Joseph’s performance rarely inspire him to do more than the basics. He is frustrated that he builds great relationships with customers and yet is pulled up on technical points, his KPIs, that have little bearing on the value of his work, which only he and his team mates understand.
Mary and her manager David talk often about the various experiences of their customers. She finds it uplifting that he understands what her days are like and sees the difference she makes. When concerns arise, David knows what questions to ask, rather than telling her she is wrong.
Feedback
Mary’s relationships with her manager and colleagues also mean she enjoys constant feedback. Mutual respect allows her to accept valid challenges and push back on those that seem to miss the point. Performance management data is a chance for dialogue.
Joseph now receives quarterly feedback. But the numbers from ‘the system’ no longer capture customer satisfaction. When his manager’s script is done, Joseph leaves the meeting after only a cursory exchange about hitting targets next time round.
Innovation
Joseph and his peers see how the world of customers is changing, but their manager, whose experience was gained 10 years ago, has other views. The team tries to do novel things but is often pulled back to old ways: assessment and recognition mirror what, a decade back, brought success to the senior team.
Mary’s manager, David, invites her and her colleagues to talk about their lives on the front line. They each are aware of how the market is evolving. Not all new ideas work with their customers, of course, but everyone learns how expectations are shifting and fresh approaches are always encouraged.
Accountability
Joseph’s colleague Amanda meets the company’s targets yet cares little for her customers or their experiences. He finds himself having to step in, usually after hours, when things go wrong. Joseph’s boss tells him to go home as there is no budget for overtime.
Mary stays late to finish a customer query or, more often, help her team mates complete their work. ‘Anyone in customer service can fire off 50 emails,’ they say, ‘But only we do magic better!’ In the office, their Magic Wall is where colleagues write feedback for each other.
Cooperation
Most people in Joseph’s team work in a steady manner: they do their jobs, meet their targets, get paid for their efforts and go home. People are skilled, but complex issues take time to resolve; other departments say that Red Tape’s Customer team is unhelpful.
Mary’s team members have their own targets around customer satisfaction, which they are happy to say comes from joint effort. They know their peers in Product, Marketing and Finance and work with them daily to get things done. Theirs is a culture of give and take, of shared responsibility.
In practice
To reveal where and how relationships enrich performance management in a given situation, consider four questions.
How might:
- The support of others enable this activity?
- Ongoing feedback yield better outcomes?
- Trust make the change easier?
The ultimate aim of performance management is to encourage new ways of working. When transitioning to a management approach centred around relationships, there are common pitfalls to avoid, such as attempting to own all of the change or trying to answer everyone’s questions.
Relationships first, process second
In recent years, novel tools – to collect data, deliver ‘insights’ and/or organise action – have tempted HR teams to galvanise systems and processes. Such solutions give a semblance of progress and control.
But our world is complex and few people’s jobs operate in isolation. Whilst systems may bring useful structure, they are likely to get in the way. Vibrant human relationships are the most powerful and flexible resource for performance management.
