|
Coaching and Performance Reviews—Time for
Some Changes
“Coaches are judged by how their trainees
perform.” I saw this quote the other day, and
it started me thinking. It certainly is true with
athletic coaches. The most sought after athletic
coaches, those with the big contracts, always have a
record of success derived from the output of
outstanding performers.
So it led me to think that this concept also might
be true for the rest of us—both in our daily
lives and on the job. The best coaches are the ones
whose learners deliver outstanding performances.
Whether it’s the music coach, the art teacher,
or the coach of our work unit improvement team, it
really is all the same.
I can remember many times over the years where I
sat in my work area and mentally prepared for the
dreaded annual performance review. I never thought
about “performance” being the key word; I
was focused on the “review.” I never saw
the experience as an opportunity for learning. I
never connected the goals buried inside my annual
plan to my
performance rating.
Now, when I think about performance reviews and
focus on the word performance, I realize how much of
a learning opportunity they offer; however, we need
to quantify performance better if we’re going
to coach performance improvement more effectively and
increase learning. This doesn’t mean that we
just assign a performance rating or check off a box,
but that we establish a measurable baseline from
which we can view progress.
If we examine the learning process, we can see
that it involves three phases: education (where we
learn concepts), training (where we learn skills),
and development (where we learn how to apply those
concepts and skills). When we establish a performance
measurement system and quantify each person’s
baseline level, we can conduct a more in-depth
analysis of the opportunities for learning and
improvement. We can determine whether additional
education, training, and/or development are most
likely to raise the performance level. We also become
more effective at describing the gaps in objective
terms and formalizing the action plan and tying the
plan’s steps to specific, anticipated levels of
performance improvement.
At the same time, performance measures and their
associated action plans can clarify what and how
coaches should approach their process. Should they
focus on educating the learner on concepts and
principles or focus on teaching the learner new
skills? Should the coach create opportunities for the
learner to practice without undue risk to him/herself
or the organization? Should the coach focus on
letting the learner discuss his/her experiences and
seek feedback?
A multitude of interventions are available, but
they aren’t totally interchangeable—they
don’t work equally well in all situations. By
having an objective measurement system, knowing the
measured performance history/trend, and being able to
track changes, the coach and the learner can
fine-tune the learning process—ensuring
positive performance changes.
So, should we view performance reviews as coaching
sessions? Should we explore how we can be a better
coach during performance reviews? Should we be open
to coaching ourselves when we’re giving
performance reviews? Absolutely! But how?
It’s easy to say, “Managers are now
coaches,” but there is much more to making this
statement a reality than simply announcing the
concept. The role of a manager calls for setting
objectives and plans for achieving those objectives,
designing and implementing controls to ensure
processes are carried out appropriately, and
overseeing others’ activities. These duties
sound far more directive than coach-like; yet they
are essential to performance management and
organizational achievement. Hopefully, the
measurements used to assess performance will be
derived from these management tasks, ensuring that
there is alignment.
When that’s the situation, managers have an
objective tool—rather than a subjective
opinion—that they can use for coaching. Instead
of “telling” subordinates how to change,
these managers can share measurable results and
provide observation-based feedback linked to those
results. Manager-coaches work with subordinates to
develop action plans, guide learning experiences, and
track improvement. This approach builds relationships
and has a much better chance of improving the
performance of both learners and their
coaches—because it’s collaborative and
fosters exchange. After all, learning is not a
one-directional process; the learners always have
something to give to the coach. We never should
forget that coaches need coaching, too.
So, why don’t we shift the focus of
performance reviews and concentrate our efforts on
identifying performance measures that can be improved
through education, training, and development? Here
are a few suggestions that we may want to
consider:
- Change the name from “performance
review” to “performance measures
evaluation.” Identify key performance
measures for each employee/position to use as a
basis for the evaluation.
- Evaluate the rate of improvement/change for
each measure, keeping track of the original
baseline level and the trend. Realize that
excellent performance isn’t necessarily about
attaining or surpassing a specific target level;
it’s about improvement. Even when a person
has a high baseline level there’s an
opportunity for improvement.
- Understand that performance success is achieved
through a combination of factors and that different
combinations work well for different people;
therefore, every person does not need to attain or
exceed the same specific minimum level for each
performance measure to succeed overall. For some
people, success may be based on leveraging and
improving strengths, rather than turning around
weaknesses. On the other hand, no one should set
aside (or give up on) any specific measure.
Continuous improvement of both strengths and
weaknesses generates sustainable success in a
constantly changing business
environment.
- Select a vital few performance measures and
connect them in a way that creates cause-and-effect
relationships. The overall outcome measures (the
effects) should be related to achieving the
individual and organizational plans. The
subordinate measures (the causes) should relate to
processes/transactions.
- Give raises based on the performance of the
outcome measures. If your organization uses a merit
system that mathematically ties raises to
performance ratings, at least tying the raises to
outcome measures reduces the subjectivity of the
system—even if the differences in performance
and raises from person to person may be quite
small.
- Use the subordinate measures to assess why the
overall outcome measures are performing at their
current level and to identify what coaching
interventions are needed and are most likely to
change overall performance.
- Create a process for developing the coaching
action plan collaboratively, and make sure that the
process includes ample opportunities for the
learner to provide feedback to the
coach.
- And if you really want to be daring, add one
specific outcome measure to every manager’s
evaluation—one that is based on how well
subordinates are performing. After all, we’ve
all heard that, “What gets measured gets
done,” so if we want to encourage managers to
become coaches, why not measure their
results?
 WILLIAM SCOTT is president
of Pioneer Learning, an organization that works with
individuals to improve their performance through
education, training, and developmental coaching. He
has an extensive background in quality management and
has been recognized by his peers and subordinates
for
his coaching abilities. He can be reached at www.pioneerlearninggroup.com.
|
