One of my worldly-wise workshop participants once said: "Logic and reason may convince people, but emotions move people."

He was telling his friends in the same workshop that to achieve productivity gains, it was necessary to win people's hearts (and not only their minds) to a new way of working; that is, to be more results-focused rather than just activity-focused. He said that winning minds over the necessity for logically balanced sets of individual targets was not enough to ensure commitment to achieving the desired results.

How wise he was, and that is the inspiration for this chapter on performance management, to enable line managers to achieve desired results through and with people. It is the heartbeat of a results-management system.

After the workshop on performance measurement, the participants went back to their respective divisions and departments to plan how they were going to set targets for themselves first.

It had been thought that setting targets was easy, and getting understanding and acceptance was the only difficult part. Now the participants realized that the expected results also had to be balanced; simply measuring quantity and time was not enough.

Identifying key results areas is the hard-thinking and focused part, from which key performance indicators and targets would logically flow. Key results areas reflect the value system of the people who regard them as key or, in some instances, as critical.

Listing the professional/technical functions and identifying key results areas are not difficult, but most managers have difficulty listing their managerial functions. Referring to standard management reference books may help.^[1] These would probably list some of the following as basic functions and key competencies:

Planning and Controlling: Forecasting; Strategic Planning; Action Planning; Budgeting; Establishing Performance Measures; Measuring; Evaluating and Correcting Performance; Establishing Policies and Procedures.

Organizing: Designing Organization Structures; Establishing Functional Roles and Relationships; Delegating.

Leading: Identifying, Recruiting, Selecting and Retaining Talent; Coaching and Counseling; Appraising Performance and Potential; Problem Solving; Decision Making; Communicating; Motivating.

The task of establishing key results areas for a range of managerial competencies might seem formidable to managers and may meet with resistance from them, especially as they also have a fair amount of professional/technical work to pay attention to. This was certainly the case at Resu Co., where some of the departments were fairly new and, with some fresh graduates and inexperienced professional/technical personnel recently taken on, the depth of professional/technical know-how was not well embedded.

However, measuring managerial performance is as vital as measuring professional/technical performance and talent needs to be well-managed. Talent management and retention are critical to business competitiveness and success.

The list of basic functions and key competencies outlined above was presented to the participants at the beginning of the training workshop on performance management. After reviewing this, Tracy asked how she should prioritize the managerial functions to be measured, as every managerial function seemed important.

Tracy was advised to identify the critical few managerial functions for the year, bearing in mind the relative weighting for professional/technical work based on the person's level of management. This would have to be agreed between the managers and their immediate superiors, or the people they supervise.

For example, one of Tracy's immediate key managerial functions for the year would be to implement the results-management system under the key management function of Leading, all the competencies for which would have to be applied. Implementing the results-management system would in itself cover many basic managerial functions from Planning and Controlling to Leading.

Henry made the point that staff retention should be a standard key result area for the Leading function, because talented people represented the company's intellectual capital, which included not only knowledge, skills, intellectual property and other organizational assets, but also the business relationships that key personnel have established with suppliers and customers over the years.

Frank supported the idea. From his experience in the Finance Division, he said, "When people leave, most of the time there are internal push factors which we may or may not be aware of. These are accelerated by pull factors from outside."

This is certainly true, particularly in an Asian context, where exit interviews do not reveal much when people may not want to be forthright about their true reasons for leaving. In the same way, dissatisfied customers often leave without comment, except for a few vocal or really incensed ones who will voice their displeasure loudly and widely.

People are generally creatures of habit, and they usually do not want to leave a comfort zone, especially one in which they enjoy job satisfaction, caring superiors, a mutually supportive work environment and a just and adequate reward system.

At the workshop on performance management subtitled "Managing for Commitment, Not Just for Compliance," the results-management system diagram was again projected on the screen, this time with the Performance Management and Review box highlighted.

Performance reviewing is a process of periodically reviewing the actual results achieved against the targets set. During periodic results reviews, performance management skills in motivation and communication are needed to build a trusting working relationship for diagnosing performance problems. Performance coaching and counseling are needed if the actual results deviate from results that should have been achieved. Deviations from targets have to be diagnosed and corrected there and then—and not at appraisal time.

Periodic Results Reviewing is evaluation in a diagnostic sense, and Performance Appraisal is a summative evaluation of final results achieved.

As a lead-in, I quickly recapitulated the key learning points on performance measurement from the previous workshop:

Things measured may get things done most of the time, but anything measured would only be improved if performance management was also part of the results-oriented culture.

It requires only compliance to get things done. To get things done well (or improved) requires commitment. A natural passion to get things improved and done well is usually confined to a small group of people. Commitment is possible from more people if they are managed well.

On the flip chart, I wrote this phrase:

Manage for Commitment, not just for Compliance.

There are some basic managerial competencies that many managers talk about and management gurus write about, but many have yet to do much about. These are often labeled as soft skills, which often connote nice-to-know skills rather than need-to-master skills.

I also wrote: What Turns Us On and What Turns Us Off and asked participants to recall experiences they may have had as direct reports where what superiors did or said turned them on or off at work. Not surprisingly, it was the turn-offs that received the greatest response because, as someone said, turn-offs are more common, and so it is easier to list them.

The lists the four groups came up with were more or less identical in content, although not in exact words or phrases. I have asked the same set of questions with many groups—from technicians, clerical assistants, secretaries, junior executives, professionals, to senior managers and directors—and most of them have come up with more or less the same conclusions, as follows on Page 44.

What does this tell us about people? It tells us that people can be different in position, wealth level, gender, age, job functions, educational levels, and so on, but they are also the same in that they are turned on and off by the same behaviors and actions of those who supervise them, report to them, work with them, or interact with them.

Asked for a possible explanation as to why, invariably, it was the same few recurring actions or behaviors that turned people on and off, Henry suggested that they all involved people's feelings, particularly regarding their need to feel important. The group nodded their agreement.

This certainly fits in with the motivational theory on higher-order needs for esteem, or the ego need. They also refer to an innate desire in most of us to perform well. This goes back to basics on human relations, founded on basic communication skills and motivation fundamentals. These are being re-visited in current popular management literature under interesting and arresting labels. How relevant these management behaviors are to the achievement of targets will become clearer later. For now, it is sufficient to note that they help to develop a trusting working relationship.

The participants were then asked to consider the following scenario:

At about 4:30 one afternoon John, an executive, was tasked with writing a report for a meeting scheduled for 9:00 the following morning. The assignment required him to go through many hardcopy files dating back a number of years to obtain data for the report. He stayed till late into the night to complete the report, classifying and tabulating the data properly for easy reference. He submitted the report to his superior at 8:30a.m. the following day.

John heard that the meeting went well and the report was very useful in helping the meeting to promptly arrive at a decision.

I asked the participants to put themselves in John's shoes and to describe their feelings or possible reactions if, after the meeting: (a) their superior said nothing about it; (b) someone else who had been at the meeting complimented them on the excellent and well-documented report; (d) the superior said to them "Good job. Well done"; or (e) their superior said immediately afterwards, "Thanks, John, for getting the report in first thing. I know I didn't give you much time. Despite that, you got all the data assembled for easy reference, which enabled us to arrive at a quick decision."

Interestingly, the participants gave slightly different reactions in the various responses to John's work.

For example, for (a), one group wrote and underscored: "No news is good news." One of the group had had an experience in a previous workplace where his superior only ever spoke to him if something had gone wrong, or performance was not up to expectations. Good performance was never discussed, as this was expected. Hence, no news was good news.

Another group wrote: "We would feel disappointed. We wouldn't know whether the report was useful or not." They explained that they thought they had done a good job, but there was no confirmation. The silence got them wondering whether the report had been acceptable.

The third group wrote: "This is normal and OK. So long as I know I did a good job, I am satisfied. I don't need anyone to pat me on the back." This, however, was not the response of the majority of the group, who, in fact, felt that they would be disheartened. The answer they gave reflected the feelings of one of the more self-confident members, who wanted this possible reaction to be presented.

The fourth group wrote: "We would feel taken for granted. Next time, we wouldn't try so hard, but just do the minimum required." This group explained that since good performance was inconsequential, they wouldn't bother to go all out the next time.

From these reactions—all of which were equally feasible—it is possible to extrapolate the following points.

In this scenario, if the majority of people in an organization said "no news is good news," they would generally be risk avoiders. They would concentrate on avoiding mistakes, instead of doing well or better. Good performance would be taken for granted and poor performance would be highlighted.

For the group that felt disappointed and unsure as to whether they had done well, theirs would be an understandable reaction. Some might be prompted to ask the superior how the report had been received, even though they might already have heard it on the grapevine.

Those who assert that they do not need confirmation of their good work would undoubtedly be in the minority. Such self-assured individuals would continue to do what they thought had to be done, according to their own standards.

The group that felt taken for granted and reacted by deciding to do the minimum in future would perform just to comply, and their commitment level would generally be low.

From this scenario, the impact of a lack of positive feedback on the performer's behavior is clear. Giving/not giving credit when due can have important ramifications for future motivation.

The workshop next reviewed the possible reactions to scenario (b), in which someone other than John's superior complimented him on the report. Here, the reactions ranged from "Pleased and satisfied—as long as someone recognized the effort, that would be enough" to "We would be happy and encouraged if this person were someone senior or, better still, our boss's superior" to "We would feel encouraged, but disappointed with our boss for not recognizing our efforts" to "We would be motivated and willing to forgive our boss if he is usually appreciative. Perhaps he had good reasons for not saying anything this time."

Without further comment, we moved on to the third scenario, in which the superior simply said, "Good job. Well done." Here, while the acknowledgment was generally appreciated, some were somewhat cynical about the response: "It doesn't sound sincere," one group said; "maybe he just needs us to do another report." By contrast, the fuller response in scenario (d) drew much more animated responses: "We would be on Cloud Nine"..."We would gladly do the next report and even improve on the presentation."

From this, we were able to draw clear ideas about the nature of giving credit, which I then summarized on the flipchart:

Giving credit is describing what you like about someone's performance or suggestion.

Being descriptive rather than evaluative in giving feedback—positive or negative—has more credibility and is more effective.

Giving credit where it's due reinforces good performance, and makes people want to repeat the same good experience.

I wrote a simple formula on the flipchart to explain this:

performance = willingness + ability

Willingness has to do with a person's attitude—a want-to or don't-want-to attitude. Ability has to do with a person's skills and knowledge—the can-do or cannot-do.

Giving credit for good performance creates a willingness to repeat the same performance. It is also telling the performer that he has done something in the correct way (using his skills and knowledge) to achieve positive results or meet expectations.

Although aptitude—an innate ability to learn a particular knowledge area or skill quickly—features in a person's performance, performing well is still determined largely by the attitude or willingness to perform.

As we have seen, to give credit effectively it must be specific about what was done that deserved the credit. It needs to refer to the actions taken or the attitude shown. Above all, the usefulness or value of the action or performance needs to be alluded to.

It has to be given when performance or a suggestion exceeds expectations or targets, and even when a person consistently meets expectations. People who perform well on a consistent basis need to be reminded from time to time that they are not being taken for granted. In such cases, though, it must not come across as being perfunctory praise and a specific reference to the actions and their value will still mean much to the performer.

I sketched the following graph mapping the performance of a newcomer who was just learning his job. I asked the class to consider what they would do if this person were in their area of responsibility.

While his performance had improved, he was still below the expected standard. Would they give him credit for the improvements he'd made?

Felix felt that credit should be given to encourage him: "If we don't say anything, he will not feel encouraged. Learning something new can be difficult, and there will be more failures than successes."

On the other hand, Tracy felt that while giving credit would encourage him, it could also convey the wrong idea that the standard of work was acceptable. Superiors needed to convey clearly the standards expected. Giving credit in this situation would send the wrong signal.

This led us naturally to the next competency: how to give constructive feedback when performance was below expectation.

But before moving on, it's worth reminding ourselves that the need to give credit applies equally across the board, to superiors as well as direct reports. Whenever, wherever and by whomever a job is done well—including by supervisors, suppliers, peers and customers—due credit needs to be given and in a timely fashion, rather than as an afterthought. Doing so will foster a healthy and positive work environment.

I commenced this session with an incident that actually happened in one organization.

The Marketing Director of a consumer-products company had just finished a meeting to change the company's price list, and rushed off to meet a client.

While he was out, a customer called his office for a price list. The call was received by his secretary, who promptly arranged for the dispatch clerk to deliver the existing price list to the customer.

When the Marketing Director returned after lunch, his secretary informed him of what she had done.

I asked the groups to discuss how the Marketing Director might react to being told that she had sent the outdated price list.

Their responses were as follows:

I then asked them to respond to each of these scenarios as if they were the secretary. Their responses to the first included:

The responses to the second scenario produced another set of defensive answers:

For the third scenario, they presented the following responses:

As expected, reactions in the final scenario were less defensive and more constructive:

The group's responses to the way the manager reacted to the error were quite common. In the first three scenarios, the performer was naturally defensive as the feedback was negative; the superior was putting the blame on the secretary. In the last scenario, encouraging things were said, even though the mistake had to be pointed out. It was tactfully done. Giving constructive feedback made the performer less defensive.

To summarize, then:

Constructive feedback is feedback intended to improve someone's performance or suggestion; it is not to chastise, reprimand, take to task, or mock someone whose performance or suggestion is below expectation.

Whenever we perform below expectations or make a mistake, the natural tendency is to be defensive and protect ourselves or our ego. We will usually not concentrate on correcting the error first. If our defensiveness can be reduced, we can focus on correcting the mistake. The idea is to state what went wrong and not who was wrong. The focus is on the behavior and not on the personality.

Returning for a moment to the two main variables affecting performance—willingness and ability—we learn that to create a willingness to improve, something positive about the action must be stated first before the fault or deficiency is pointed out.

In the fourth of the scenarios above, the Marketing Director stated the secretary's initiative and service mindset (the pluses) first. Then he went over the demerit or minus (the sending out of the wrong price list). Highlighting the minus is being fair yet firm about mistakes. It is descriptive rather than evaluative. This is constructive feedback.

Finally, having pointed out the error, it is necessary to look for a solution. First, a corrective action has to be taken. Then, preventive actions have to be considered, so that the same mistake does not recur. More importantly, who should ensure that the corrective and preventive actions are taken in the above scenario?

Henry felt that since the Marketing Director had asked what they could do about it, this indicated that he also accepted accountability for the error. At the same time, he was trying to elicit a solution from the secretary. This subtly implied that she should also assume ownership of the problem. That, to him, was the art of management—to encourage the performer to want to take remedial action and accept ownership of the problem.

I couldn't agree more. Indeed, most superiors instinctively feel the need to provide the solution, sometimes under the mistaken notion that this will gain them respect. But there are a number of advantages in eliciting a solution from the performer. Firstly, the direct report is generally nearer the action, and solutions will likely be closer to the ground to be effective. (In this incident, in fact, the secretary was able to call the dispatch clerk on his mobile phone and halt the delivery, thus averting a potential problem at the operational level. It was her solution to a problem she had unwittingly created.)

Secondly, when you encourage an employee to think of a solution, you are encouraging initiative in the performer. To do otherwise would be to risk creating a crutch mentality that all problems needed to be solved higher up, and that the solution will have to be complied with. That is the difference between managing for commitment and managing for compliance.

There will be times—perhaps when the performer is new or inexperienced—when the superior has to provide the solution. Even then, the performer may be able to contribute a fresh perspective and it might still be worthwhile resisting the temptation to provide the answer too readily.

Even if you have an alternative solution, it is still better to go through the process before proffering your solution. This will be a reiterative process until there is consensus, understanding and acceptance of a final solution or combination of solutions. This makes it easier to implement the solution, as there is involvement from the implementer.

But for some newly promoted managers such an approach is not always easy to effect and Eugene was able to share his own experience in this regard:

"I recall being promoted above my peers in a high-tech firm. All of us were specialists in our own areas, but once you were made manager, you became a generalist overnight. When there were technical problems beyond your technical experience, you might not have the technical depth to solve them. If you tried to be clever by trying to provide answers, or tried to show who was the boss, you were in for a lot of support and commitment issues.

"Eventually, I realized it was better to be honest and admit humbly that I did not have all the answers, and that my staff specialists would be the ones who could provide solid answers.

"Initially I was afraid that they would think that my role was irrelevant, and that gave me a lot of stress and anxiety. But then I thought it through, and I decided I had to distinguish between process and content. I realized that my role as a manager was to point out what was or was not working, or what aspect was done right or not done right. That, I think, is the constructive feedback process for correcting a poor outcome. The specialists under my charge should deal with the content and be motivated to provide the creative solutions."

In this case, Eugene managed to win the respect and co-operation of his former peers (who became his direct reports) by using the constructive-feedback process and allowing his direct reports to provide the solution. He had managed to sort out their complementary roles, which is the essence of teamwork leadership.

As we have seen, the constructive-feedback process requires that the one providing that feedback is able to state the merits of the action in order to reduce defensiveness on the part of the performer while, at the same time, describing the demerits to highlight the need for improvement.

But what happens if you cannot see any merit in the action that has been taken? This was a point raised by Frank: "I like the process. I can see that it's logical and motivating. But sometimes, for the life of me, I cannot see any merit or plus in what people do or say. I'm not proud to say it, but my immediate impulse is to point out the demerit. If I try to say something like 'What you did was good, but...,' it would seem hypocritical, especially when what was done was idiotic! How are we supposed to state a merit or plus when we cannot see any?"

I threw it open to the group. Martin suggested that: "The easiest way might be to ask the performer why he did something that way. What merit or advantage did he see? We could say something tactful like, 'I'm not sure I understand the advantages of your proposal. Would you like to elaborate on it before I give my comments?'"

Several in the group nodded in agreement.

Yes, ask the performer. They will have a rationale for the things they do or say. We do not see the pluses the same way they see them. If we insist that they see things our way, that is, the minus or minuses, they may become defensive or resistant. So let's look at things their way first, before trying to bring them around to seeing things our way.

Dealing with performance deficiencies in this manner not only increases the chances of gaining the respect and co-operation of those you supervise, but is also likely to instill confidence in your direct reports. People who are less worried about making mistakes are likely to learn more on the job, to innovate without fear of blame if things go wrong, and to initiate solutions for greater productivity.

To begin the next session at Resu Co., I opened with the following scenario, and asked the participants how managers might react in this instance.

A conscientious administrative assistant had an idea to improve office productivity. He made this suggestion to his manager: "Boss, I think we should centralize our filing system for easy retrieval of files."

The groups were asked to discuss and list common responses to this suggestion, and they came up with the following possibilities:

I then asked them which of these indicated that the manager had been listening.

Someone suggested that respondents 1, 2 and 3 were listening, as they were reacting to the suggestion. Respondent 4 was obviously not listening as he changed the subject. Respondent 5 was just curious to know more. This prompted a discussion on what we actually mean by "listening."

Effective Listening is actively searching for the meaning of what people are trying to say and why they are saying it. This is more than is implied in the well-known phrase "active listening" because how accurately or effectively we understand a message is crucial.

By that definition, therefore, respondents 1, 2 and 3 could not be said to be listening. They were reacting, and they were assuming that they knew exactly what the speaker had in mind and why he was suggesting it. In fact, respondent 1 was dismissive and did not bother to find out more about what was being suggested. Respondent 2 assumed he knew exactly what the assistant had in mind, and gave the go-ahead. After all, the assumption seems to be, wasn't it just a matter of re-arranging and shifting filing cabinets to a central location in the office?

Respondent 3, too, assumed he knew what was entailed and merely asked for the cost.

As most of the group were quick to point out, respondent 4 was obviously not listening and simply changed the subject.

Respondent 5 was the one good listener. He was trying to find out more about the "what" and the "why" of the proposal. He was not dismissive. He did not assume he knew exactly what the speaker was trying to say, and he wanted to know more. He had, in a sense, accorded value to what the speaker was trying to say. In the list of turn-ons discussed earlier, he would be seen as approachable, receptive, open-minded and interested in the direct report as a person.

Good listeners therefore make people feel important and recognized. They are more likely to obtain more information, and they themselves will likely get to be heard too.

I posed another scenario for the class.

You are at a staff meeting to discuss candidates for a job vacancy. Job specifications have been discussed. Some names were suggested. Some could be considered. Others, it was unanimously concluded, were clearly unsuitable.

Up to now, there has been no conclusive agreement on a suitable candidate. Then someone remarked, "Let's consider people from other departments as well."

This time, the participants were asked for their interpretations of this remark. These were their responses:

These were all interesting and, indeed, plausible interpretations. But, short of having extra-sensory or telepathic powers to read people's thoughts behind their utterances, there can be no real certainty as to which, if any, of these is correct. People don't always say what they mean. Sometimes, intentionally or otherwise, neither do they always mean what they say. And often we only hear what we want to hear.

To ensure that we have interpreted what has been said correctly, or, for that matter, whether the speaker means what he has said, we can clarify the "what" and the "why' with the speaker. But even then we can't assume that we have understood accurately the intent behind the statement without checking back with the speaker. This is often done simply by confirming in our own words what we have heard. This is not merely a parroting of the speaker's words but a paraphrasing; that is, stating our understanding in our own words.

To summarize then; for effective listening we should not automatically assume that we have understood what has been said. To avoid that assumption, we should clarify what was said and why it was said. If we think we have understood what was said and why it was said, then we confirm our understanding by paraphrasing it back to the speaker.

Communication, whether spoken or written, is a process that involves the encoding of ideas by the speaker/writer and the decoding of those ideas by the listener/reader. For the communication to be effective, certain barriers have to be confronted and overcome, as illustrated in Figure 3.1.

When someone has an idea or concept to convey, he needs to encode it in order to transmit it to the receiver of the message. To encode is to convert the abstract concept into a written or verbal form, or a picture, symbol, signal or gesture, so that the receiver of the message can visualize and grasp the meaning intended. However, our encoding efforts are often distorted or hampered by a host of barriers—physical, psychological, cultural, or emotional. These can include our articulation, our accents, our choice of words, our mistaken assumptions about the listener's perceptive ability, or the influence of our past interactions with the listener.

Figure 3.1. Overcoming Barriers to Communication

We are more practiced with sending messages, spoken or written. We often get opportunities to attend courses on writing and speaking to overcome these barriers. Receiving the message effectively, on the other hand, poses greater challenges.

In receiving messages, the receiver decodes as he listens or reads, but the decoding process may be distorted or influenced by physical, psychological, cultural, and emotional barriers as well. There might also be noise distractions affecting reception and understanding, the receiver could be preoccupied with something else, or emotions like sadness or elation could color his understanding of the message. His values and beliefs could also pose barriers to understanding as they act as filters or distorters.

We are generally less practiced and have fewer opportunities for training in receiving spoken messages. We tend to jump to conclusions or react quickly to spoken messages. Therefore, in order to overcome barriers to listening, clarifying and confirming will guide us to actively search for the meaning of what the sender is trying to convey, and why he is conveying it.

Thus, the art of listening is also the art of questioning. In seeking to clarify the what and why, you might ask:

In confirming the what and the why, you might use phrases such as:

The better we master the art of listening, the more we can learn about what and how others think.

However, if we had to clarify and paraphrase every statement or opinion that is made to ensure we understand clearly, life would be very tedious for both listener and speaker.

Most of the time in our day-to-day communication, we don't follow this process and we can take the risk of minor misunderstandings without serious consequences. There are occasions, however, particularly in our business and professional lives, when it is essential to follow the process to ensure effective communication.

The participants offered a range of examples from their own experience of when effective listening would be crucial. These included when dealing with grievances from employees or when the instinctive reaction may be to be defensive or to disagree with what is being said, especially if this relates to the company's policy or image. At exit interviews, too, general statements such as "morale is low" or "your salary is not competitive" or "I want a change" need to be probed further to gain better insights.

Another crucial area is in customer service, where it is not sufficient to simply apologize when things go wrong. While it is necessary to effect a quick solution to the problem this shouldn't be done without first finding out more about the cause of the customer's dissatisfaction. The effective-listening process undoubtedly elicits the kind of information that enables both corrective and preventive measures to be taken.

As highlighted in our example earlier, another situation when effective listening is vital is when dealing with suggestions from direct reports on how processes may be improved. The best decisions are made when all the information necessary to weigh up the pros and cons is available. And detailed information is obtained through effective listening.

If we can encourage suggestions from employees on an informal basis, by listening to them carefully and sincerely, we will encourage more spontaneous suggestions. They won't mind so much even if the idea is not taken up so long as it is given due consideration.

Employers/managers who really listen to what their direct reports have to say are likely to reap the benefits in commanding greater respect, commitment and loyalty.

This session opened with the following scenario:

The company has implemented a system of small-group activities among non-managerial staff. These activities are voluntary, and the meetings take place after office hours every Friday evening. They are intended to involve and engage employees in solving operational problems.

These activities have been implemented in Japanese companies, and have been shown to improve productivity, cost savings, team spirit, and staff retention.

Employees in supervisory positions must be selected to oversee these activities and facilitate the meetings. These leaders will guide and train their groups in problem-solving and creative-thinking techniques.

All supervisory and managerial staff have attended a briefing on how the small-group activities are done. Training for the group leaders will be provided after they have been nominated.

You approach your line supervisor to start one group. However, this supervisor is neither keen nor willing to take on the role. He says he had classes to attend on Friday evenings, and he has to fetch his children home from school as his wife is unavailable on Fridays.

I then asked the class to consider some of the common approaches managers might take in this situation.

The groups came up with two possible approaches.

Approach 1

Arrange a private meeting with the supervisor and explain to him the importance of the project to the company. Tell him that every department must have at least one small-group activity. Stress that he is most suited to lead the group. As for his personal commitments, tell him that if there is a will there is a way. Suggest that he gets some relative to help. Assure him that he can use an assistant in the group in his absence, if he cannot get a relative to help, or when some crucial lectures cannot be missed. Ask him to think about it and get back to you in the next few days.

Approach 2

Have a drink with him. Explain the significance of the small group activities to the department. Let him know you have great confidence in him to lead. Tell him that since the company places importance on this, his involvement will be noted in his appraisal, and be considered in promotion exercises. If he declines, top management will not take kindly to it. Ask him to help you out; tell him that he has always been helpful and his attitude has always been good.

I then asked the class which of these would have a higher degree of success in persuading the supervisor to accept the task willingly. Opinions and conclusions were varied, and they reflected the participants' past experiences in managing people.

For Approach 1, someone said, "He may not consider it seriously. Chances are, he will still be preoccupied with his own concerns and he's likely to decline."

Someone else said, "He may accept the role if he feels indebted to the manager, can get relatives to help with his children and is confident of his grades for his studies. The chances of fulfilling all that seem remote, though."

A third person thought he might be resentful of the strong "sales pitch" and pressure tactics. He might retort that it was a voluntary activity and not a contractual duty.

For Approach 2, one immediate response was, "This is the classic carrot-and-stick approach, using incentives and disincentives. Some might be coerced into submitting for fear of reprisals. There will not be much commitment if he accepts."

Another person volunteered, "This approach assumes that people are motivated by pleasure and pain alone, and there are no other needs that are more immediate and relevant to the performer."

"If this supervisor badly wants to be promoted, and he sees this as an opportunity to be noticed, then he might accept the role. What he does with the group after accepting is another matter," said a third person.

All agreed that it is very unprofessional for a manager to hint at a good appraisal and future promotion as a means of getting someone to do something he is not inclined to do. Performing one voluntary activity is not a ticket to a good appraisal or a promotion. That sends the wrong signal, and may cause more unhappiness in future. Nevertheless, such tactics are sometimes used at work (or, indeed, in the home in persuading children to do their homework or to study hard). After a while, though, these tactics lose their motivational value and the managers who employ them lose their credibility.

The groups thought they had finished discussing the merits and demerits of the two approaches, when someone raised a very interesting question: "Isn't the supervisor expected to show a good example and accept the role without even being asked? If I were his manager, I would just tell him he has to do it even though he is reluctant. Yes, it is voluntary, but as a leader he has an obligation to implement something important like this, where productivity is concerned."

This is certainly one approach open to managers but it may well not produce the intended effect. In such circumstances, is the supervisor likely to put his heart and soul into it? Will he be motivated to inspire his group to come up with creative solutions? This is managing for compliance rather than for commitment.

All of the approaches discussed are commonly used by many and, in some instances, they do work. People who may be unenthusiastic about something initially may become more enthusiastic as they get involved. Sometimes, the enthusiasm of the group may rub off on the reluctant participant. In this situation, though, we should look for an approach that increases the probability of success, or the supervisor's willing acceptance of the assignment.

On the surface, this may be seen as an exercise in persuasion or a cajoling session. In effect, though, it is an example of handling a conflict. A conflict does not always involve an open fight or an exchange of angry words. These are signs of conflict. When there is a difference in priorities (objectives, opinions, beliefs, values, and so on), a conflict can be said to exist.

Handling conflict is managing differences (of opinions, objectives, preferences, values, beliefs, and so on) in such a way that it leads to a mutually beneficial outcome or what is normally termed a win-win conclusion.

When a solution benefits both parties, it's easier to implement as there'll be a vested interest on both sides.

If, in our example, the supervisor is directed to lead the activity against his wishes, he will feel that the superior has won and he has lost. He has to sort out his children's transportation problems and he has to miss classes he has paid for. So, it won't be surprising if he does not put in his best efforts, and the small group produces nothing of any value. If that happens, neither has won. At his year-end appraisal, the superior may hold the group's dismal results against him and rate him poorly, affecting his appraisal rating and track record in the company.

He is disgruntled. Along comes an executive search consultant with an offer of higher pay. He is helped in this pull factor by an underlying push factor, and leaves a position that he has been comfortable with. He has generally worked well with his colleagues. He is going to an organization and a position that is unfamiliar, and he feels insecure. To conclude this dismal scenario, the manager loses an experienced supervisor and has to spend time and money looking for a replacement.

The final outcome may be a loss for both, although this may not be immediately apparent.

In the light of this, the class proceeded to review their versions of how they would do it differently. This was what they came up with. (They assumed that the supervisor knows the importance of the small group activities.)

Consolidated approach

Acknowledge and address his concerns. Help look for ways to solve his concerns about his children and his studies. Offer to render further assistance for other concerns he may have. Propose some compromise solutions, such as allowing him to leave in time to fetch his children (and have the group continue by itself), suggesting that he get a classmate to tape record lectures for him, or appointing an assistant leader in the group, etc.

In taking this approach, the group had done something that doesn't always happen in handling conflict; that is, thinking of the other person and their needs first. In fact, we seldom approach conflict from the other party's point of view. We sometimes overlook it, ignore it, downplay it, or even disparage it. In doing so, we are imposing our own values on others, which is not helpful if we hope to influence or persuade them.

The temptation might be to go for some kind of compromise solution that has a greater chance of being accepted quickly, thus minimizing delays and interruptions to the work schedule.

Compromises can be useful when a deadlock is reached and neither party is willing to budge. They can save time and are useful when time is limited. But if we look at compromises closely, they are actually an equal sharing of loss. Ideally, we want to go for a win-win solution. It reduces future regrets and is more enduring. Professional negotiators and arbiters earn their keep by using creative win-win solutions. While this normally takes more time, the quality of the resolution is generally much better.

One technique to try to reach a creative solution to problems is to impose artificial constraints, as in the following scenario which I use as an exercise for workshop participants.

Your immediate superior wants a report to be submitted in a week's time. From your experience, you need three weeks to do it properly, with all the necessary research, illustrations and narratives. What would you do?

Your first instinct might be to negotiate for a compromise agreement of two weeks. But, for the purposes of our illustration, the report is required for a board meeting in exactly one week's time. This being the case, there seems no way around it: it will just have to be done.

In cases such as this, I recommend imposing an artificial constraint: in this instance, by asking the groups to consider what they would do if the report was required by 9:00 the following morning.

The groups quickly came up with the following list of possible approaches:

From this abundance of ideas, three of the solutions were centered around time, and six were based on manpower, format, and content, rather than time. By moving away from a time paradigm and looking for win-win solutions within other paradigms, they gave themselves more options to choose from.

When we get into deadlocks or settle for compromises, it is usually because we work on past experiences and fixed, unquestioned assumptions. In this case, the fixed assumption that caused the deadlock was the time paradigm.

So, in our original scenario where the company wanted the line supervisor to take responsibility for a group activity after working hours, using this process the manager would acknowledge the direct report's legitimate concerns but point out that the group activities were required to support the company's plans. Between them, they could discuss possible alternative arrangements, including questioning the assumption that the activities had to be on a Friday evening. After consulting with other members of the group, they may find that another evening would be better for all concerned.

Such examples of potential conflict occur on a daily basis within organizations of every kind and, more often that not, it is the line manager's responsibility to find solutions that work for all concerned. Such day-to-day examples might include having to deal with a usually conscientious section head who has begun arriving late to work on a regular basis; or tricky cases in which compromising might present a challenge to the company's policies and set an unwelcome precedent for the future.

In the course of my workshops, for example, participants have raised areas of potential conflict from their experience:

Such examples put managers in a quandary. They would like to be able to help but to allow individual exceptions may set precedents that lead to a position where, in the end, policies may exist in name only; standards would become unclear and give rise to confusion.

In situations like these, managers can use the conflict-handling process by acknowledging, understanding, and accepting what's important to the direct report but stating clearly what is important to the company and explaining why it is so. This also ensures that they show enough interest to go into the details of the individual's constraints. This in itself may trigger solutions, by unobtrusively examining fixed paradigms within the policy constraints.

As line managers, they have a duty to see that policies are applied consistently. They can explain their role in policy implementation but, more importantly, can explain the rationale behind the policy. This is more likely to be understood and accepted if, in the first place, they have tried to understand what is important to the requester.

A policy is a constraint, and not varying the policy is, in a way, a win for the company but a loss for the employee. However, that constraint does not preclude the superior from helping to look for creative solutions with the direct report within the confines and constraints of the policy.

Even though using the process to resolve conflicts with satisfying win-win outcomes might take longer, the quality of the outcome, the higher commitment to implementing solutions, and the impact on the work environment far outweigh the effort put in. Furthermore, effective and respected leaders often handle conflicts in this way, as the turn-on/turn-off exercise showed.

It is important, though, not to use the process mechanically and gloss over what is important to the other party with overused and insincere expressions, such as, "I understand your situation, but...," which do not adequately show the superior's understanding of what is important to the direct report. The superior must describe his understanding clearly and specifically. Indeed, both parties need to be equally clear and specific, so that both can have a clear picture of the overall situation.

In all of this, we have to avoid the tendency to provide instant or quick solutions, even when a situation does not require it. These sometimes lead to compromises or business-as-usual situations.

It is well worth remembering that research into conflict resolution has shown that forcing or win-lose approaches produce a low chance of an effective resolution; compromises or both-lose-some approaches have an even lower chance of effective resolution; and withdrawal from conflict approaches has no chance for resolution. Open problem-solving or win-win approaches, on the other hand, have a higher chance of effective resolution.

It might be as well at this point to reflect for a moment over recent or past meetings you had attended, and consider how often you or others have responded in any of the following ways:

Reflecting on situations like these can help managers review common practices and pitfalls in interpersonal relations affecting commitment to work.

At the Resu workshop, this exercise prompted the following comment from Eugene: "I agree that these skills will motivate people to be more committed. However, I can't help but wonder if I might be construed as being manipulative, as I would still be trying to get people to do what I expect them to do. In other words, what is the difference between motivation and manipulation?"

Frank offered this perception: "I think if the direct report sees that the approach meets with his needs, then it is motivating and a win for him. On our part, as we use the approaches we discussed, we are more assured of a committed direct report and, perhaps, productive solutions, and that would be meeting our own need. I see it as simply a win-win for both and not a question of manipulation. It would only be so if one party wins and one party loses, knowingly or unknowingly."

This prompted Henry to recall the story of an assistant manager who was offered a promotion to take up a manager's position in another country. He received a salary increase, was given the use of a company car, and was allowed home leave twice a year. Six months into the new position, he resigned.

It later transpired that he had recently got married. He had tried to get his wife, who was pregnant, a job in the new location but was not successful. Every time he called home, he could hear how distraught and lonely his wife was. He asked for his former position back but it had been filled and he had no choice but to apply for a job with another company back home at a lower pay and position.

It was an unintended win-lose for the employee, as the company had assumed that the perks and pay rise would meet his career needs. It turned out that his real need was to be with his family and still be gainfully employed, above everything else.

In this case—and in many other cases—though the company may have acted with the best of intentions, it did so based on the assumption that it knew the individual's needs. In doing so, it overlooked his real needs. When this happens, it can sometimes result in unintentional win-lose situations, which ultimately lead to lose-lose outcomes.

All of the soft skills discussed so far are essential for on-the-job training, which is the focus of the next section on diagnosing performance problems.

At the next session at Resu Co., I began by asking the participants why supervisors have difficulty in coaching and counseling their direct reports. After discussion within their groups, they came up with the following:

Though "coaching" and "counseling" are often used interchangeably, they are different concepts. When asked what "coaching" meant to them, participants often give various definitions based on their common understanding, including: showing how to do something; telling how to do something; and instructing/imparting skills. For "counseling," their understanding would include: guiding; advising; helping by advising; and mentoring.

But a clearer differentiation is required, as follows:

Performance Coaching is a diagnostic process of establishing the knowledge and skill deficiencies affecting good performance.

Performance Counseling is a diagnostic process focusing on attitude or willingness to change attitudes or mindsets that are negatively affecting an individual's performance or that of others.

It is important to stress here that we will be focusing on performance coaching and counseling, rather than other forms of counseling involving clinical or psychological issues. The process we will be looking at will be used to diagnose performance problems, and to establish their real causes.

Bearing in mind the simple equation of performance being a function of willingness and ability, a comparison between the two concepts is made in Table 3.1, below.

Because individual coaching and counseling involve working on a one-to-one basis, interpersonal bonding and a trusting working relationship are critical to success.

The skills of giving credit, constructive feedback, effective listening, and conflict handling, if used appropriately, will help to encourage the open and trusting working climate essential for performance coaching and counseling.

At Resu, I presented the workshop with the following scenarios and asked if they would use coaching or counseling to address them.

For situation (1), most felt that counseling was required, as it was obviously an attitude problem. However, one group indicated that it could also be a skill problem: the junior executive may have used an inappropriate word or phrase inadvertently, and this could have been perceived to be rude by the customer. Therefore, coaching was required.

For situation (2), the groups were unanimous: it was a "don't know what and how" problem and coaching was required.

For situation (3), some groups thought that it could be an attitude or willingness problem, as it did not require skill or knowledge to be cooperative. Therefore, counseling was required. Other groups thought that it could be the new employee's lack of knowledge about certain issues in the organization that made him appear uncooperative, and coaching was called for.

There were mixed reactions to situation (4). Some managers, who had themselves been caught in situations where they could not submit data on time, argued that it was not their attitude that was causing the problem. Sometimes requests were submitted during busy periods (for example, month-end closing). At other times, the information needed was complex or the time given was simply insufficient.

For situation (5), the general opinion was that the medical-leave entitlement was generally seen as a policy. Whether people abused this entitlement or not depended very much on their value system. Some people will report to work despite a bad cold, while others would call in sick with the slightest cough. They concluded that it had to do with attitude, and would thus use counseling to address it.

One group had an interesting point to add. They remarked that reporting for work while seriously ill, for example, was also not ideal, as this person would not be able to work at his best, or he might spread the virus in the office. Counseling was also required in such situations.

Seemingly simple incidents can raise the question of whether it has to do with skill deficiency or attitude. The danger is in making a quick assumption. It is important to keep an open mind to find out more before trying to ascertain the most probable cause.

The groups were presented with a typical scenario and asked to come up with possible responses from untrained or unaware supervisors to the situation described below:

Your direct report should have set a date for the completion of his project and come back to you with it. So far, he has not done so. You have arranged for him to see you to review the status of what he has done, and to set a target date for completion.

The groups came up with these possible common queries from superiors wanting quick answers:

For coaching to be effective, we need to switch from the usual quick-fix adversarial approach—the superior asking why and the direct report defensively giving reasons or excuses (as illustrated in Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Quick-fix Approaches to Performance Problems

Quick-fix solutions are, at best, interim solutions. They may be used to treat symptoms, but they may not reveal root causes.

Common approaches to coaching

Table 3.2 provides a list of the common approaches to coaching, highlighting the pros and cons of each approach.

Table 3.2. Approaches to Coaching

Approach	Superior's Role
Tell	Directive Role (Do this)
Sell	Expert Role (This is the best way)
Work On Jointly	Colleague Role (Let's see what we can do)
Draw Out	Facilitator Role (What ideas do you have?)
Review and Endorse	Authorization Role (Tell me what you plan to do?)

Although the Tell and Sell approaches are time-saving, the solutions invariably come from the superior and may lead the direct report to become overly dependent on the superior to solve problems.

With the Draw Out and Review-and-Endorse approaches, the solutions are more likely to come from the direct report, especially if they are experienced or well-qualified staff.

Work On Jointly, as illustrated in Figure 3.3, is a collaborative approach with learning opportunities for the direct report on the job.

Most highly-regarded managers tend to use the joint working and drawing-out approaches, which are inductive and non-adversarial, and require tact and sensitivity in solving problems thus creating greater commitment from the direct report.

Figure 3.3. The Joint Approach to Solving Problems

The Performance Coaching process is shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3. The Performance Coaching Process

Describe the performance problem State the expected result vs. the actual result

Find the real cause Reduce defensiveness Obtain facts from the performer Ascertain most probable cause Confirm real cause

Seek solutions Allow performer to suggest solutions Work on solution jointly Suggest possible solution Invite third-party solution

Implement solutions Allow performer ownership Obtain understanding and acceptance

Follow up on implementation Obtain feedback from performer Provide feedback

This process is logical and rational—but pure logic by itself will not necessarily solve the problem if we are dealing with human performance. In such instances, a major concern is dealing with natural defensiveness that impedes communication when something goes wrong or is below expectations. When dealing with performance issues, it helps to be descriptive rather than be evaluative. This reduces the need for the performer to be defensive.

These are the steps in the problem-solving process.

Describe the performance problem: Instead of asking why, we start with describing what. An easy, descriptive way is to state the should and the actual. This will set the tone for a joint problem-solving approach.

In our example above, the direct report should have set a target date. The actual situation was that he had not done it.

Find the real cause: To find the real cause of the problem, we need facts. Symptoms of defensiveness—such as giving opinions, making excuses, or allocating blame—will not help us to find the real cause of the problem. They will distract from the objective fact-finding.

To get facts, we need to draw out by clarifying and confirming, in order to understand the what and why. Only when we can piece the facts together will we be able to ascertain the root cause of why the performer was not meeting targets or expectations.

Seek solutions: Once the real cause is understood and accepted, it will be easier for the performer to propose solutions or contribute ideas for joint problem solving.

Usually, once a root cause is ascertained and accepted, the performer can come up with logical preventive and corrective solutions. Constructive feedback can also be used to eventually refine solutions.

Implement solutions: Implementation will be easier if there is ownership of a solution. Therefore, if the solution is not imposed as something to be complied with, but comes from the performer or is jointly developed, there will be commitment. The implementation will be more expeditious.

Follow up on implementation of solution(s): In most cases, where there is ownership of a solution, empowerment and self-control will be the best form of follow-up.

However, it is still the responsibility of the superior to monitor the implementation to give the message that performance matters and that he is interested in the current status.

While the logical problem-solving steps are a left-brain process, the soft skills of effective listening, giving credit, constructive feedback, and conflict handling are needed to make the coaching effective.

In our example, what appears on the surface to be a time-management or attitude issue may well simply be a case of the direct report not knowing how to go about the task. The time and patience required to do things properly will undoubtedly pay greater dividends than simply jumping to conclusions and to adopting a confrontational approach without taking the time to ascertain the real cause(s) of a problem.

To summarize then, the benefits of coaching include the following:

To the performer

• On-the-job learning that can be applied immediately to the problem

• Better understanding of the superior's standards and expectations

• Guidance and support from the superior

To the superior

• Opportunity to foster a closer and more trusting working relationship with the direct report

• Easier to encourage direct report to self-evaluate performance once a good working relationship is in place

• A better insight into direct report's work, and also a better understanding of the operating environment and issues affecting it

• Gain respect as a superior

• Greater probability for talent retention

Pitfalls to avoid

• Adopting a talk-down, parent-to-child approach, instead of an adult-to-adult approach

• Using Tell and Sell more than Working On Jointly or Drawing Out

• Passing judgment about performer before finding out cause of problem

• Being in a hurry to provide solutions

Whenever I ask workshop participants whether it is easier to coach or to counsel, the answer is almost always unanimous—counseling is more difficult.

Asked to elaborate, some people reply that changing attitudes or getting a person to want to do something is more difficult than helping a person to learn how to do it.

The difficulty is not so much in changing attitudes. The challenge lies more in the need to manage the emotions, especially when there is a threat to the performer's self-worth and self-image. If that is managed well, the willingness to change will come about more easily, as people by and large are more easily moved by emotions than by reasoning.

Three skills that are useful in managing emotions and restoring self-worth are: empathizing; paraphrasing feelings; and asking "soft" questions. These three specific skills need to be used in addition to the approaches and soft skills discussed in performance coaching.

These skills enable managers, as counselors, to preserve the self-image of performers. It is only after the performer has cooled and settled down that they can look into identifying the causes of their behavior. These skills help superiors to "listen" to the performer's feelings.

We can use the same logical problem-solving process in counseling to ascertain the cause or reason behind undesirable behavior, and to provide an objective basis for what is usually an emotional situation.

With counseling, there is a greater need to manage the emotional barriers to communication. We need to attend to this before proceeding to reduce normal defensiveness, to find out why the performer behaved in a certain way.

The logical problem-solving process is the same as for performance coaching. However, the use of emotion-managing skills becomes more acute. That is why most people find counseling more of an art than a straightforward skill.

The Performance Counseling process is set out in Table 3.5.

In the Resu workshop, I asked the participants to apply the process to the following scenario, drawing on their own experiences of similar situations, of possible approaches to take in counseling Larry in the following scenario.

You are head of a division. Sandra, an administrative assistant who works in a department under your division, has tendered her resignation.

During her exit interview, she claims that her department head, Larry, was unreasonable and would yell at the slightest thing.

She also accuses Larry of being unpunctual himself, so she should not be picked on for being unpunctual.

This was an exercise in how to manage emotions and reduce defensiveness and the groups first came up with examples of things they should avoid saying:

Instead, they thought that the following lead-ins might result in a higher success rate.

It was clear that the group had realized that being descriptive and using soft questions might enable Larry to reflect over what he had done, and whether he would do it differently (for example, by coming to work on time himself) in future.

To test their skills a little further, the class was then given the following case to work on. They were asked to role-play and establish the cause of the undesirable behavior.

Peter is your direct report. His work meets acceptable standards but his major drawback is the tendency to procrastinate. Recently you gave him an assignment, which he again left till the last minute. Though the work was acceptable, you feel it could have been better if he had spent more time considering all alternatives for doing it more effectively.

You feel the need to counsel Peter on performance efficiency (meeting time standards) and effectiveness (meeting quality standards). You also want him to understand that procrastination and better work quality are not synonymous.

It was interesting to observe the groups as they role-played the counseling process, using all the soft skills they had learned in overcoming Peter's initial defensiveness when he felt accused and misunderstood. Focusing on the facts, rather than on assumptions or opinions, enabled the superior to manage Peter's emotions properly. Paraphrasing his responses and empathizing with him, the superior was able to draw out the underlying reason for his procrastination. (In one particular group, Peter felt that whenever he completed his work early, he would be assigned another task to do, while others were still working on their first task. He looked upon it as punishment for being efficient. He therefore tried not to finish his tasks before deadline.)

While some might view the early completion of an assigned task as an opportunity to begin a fresh assignment, others may have different needs and may not relish another challenge. It is incumbent on the manager, therefore, to know their direct reports well, including their strengths, weaknesses, likes and dislikes.

In this case, the underlying reason for Peter's procrastination (not wanting to be "punished" with more work if he finished ahead of time) is a common phenomenon, and one that is often perceived as an attitude problem.

To this could be added three other common causes of perceived attitude problems:

It is important to diagnose individual performance problems correctly, so as not to jump to the cause of problems and engage in solutions that may cause more problems. Moreover, if these problems exist in the work environment, they represent push factors, thus making talent retention difficult.^[2]

To summarize then, the benefits of performance counseling include:

It takes longer to learn how to achieve results through and with people than it does to establish performance measures and results. Performance management is critical to the success of any results-management system. As we have seen, performance management is not solely a left-brain activity. The soft skills breathe life into the results-management system, which should be viewed as a people system, and not a paper system.

While making use of all the skills, processes, and tools might take some time to settle in, after a while it becomes second nature, in much the same way that IT processes have been internalized by almost all organizations as a job aid.

It is a matter of consciously using what we have learned until we develop insights and a feel for the skills. If we tell ourselves we have no time to use these skills, we will not allocate time to practice them.

As part of performance management, managers need to conduct periodic results reviews to check whether targets set are likely to be met, so that corrective actions can be taken where necessary.

These reviews are in essence diagnostic evaluations of performance, with reference to targets set. The process used is the same problem-solving process used in performance coaching and counseling.

However, we are not only looking for negative variances. Positive variances against targets set are also noted, because the causes also contribute to learning experiences.

The overall review process, as set out in Table 3.6, is the same as for problem solving, except that the positive and negative variances, as well as the causal factors, are recorded for use at annual appraisal time.

This is a very important record of performance, and should be done on at least a quarterly basis, as superiors sometimes get transferred during the year. There will then be a record for the successor to rely on for annual summative evaluations of work done during the period he was not present. Sometimes, it's the performer who gets transferred during the year, and the record of his work prior to transfer will be useful for his new superior.

There is a perception among some line managers that performance results reviews are time-consuming and perhaps excessive since there is the annual performance appraisal. This is understandable as most line managers have day-to-day operational problems to contend with. The way to have periodic results reviews accepted is to draw parallels with the company's daily, weekly, monthly, or quarterly financial, accounting or other business reports such as production reports and sales reports which also feed into the annual reports.

Individual performance results need not be formally reported as frequently as, say, sales and production. But quarterly formal updates can prove very useful at year's end for making overall annual appraisal ratings.

Where this is done less frequently—say, on a six-monthly basis, which some organizations have tried—the reviews tend to become mini-appraisals before the year-end appraisals and are looked upon as an HR administrative duty, rather than a line manager's responsibility.

It is a common mistake to regard periodic results reviews as mini-appraisals, as line managers have a responsibility to train and develop those under their charge and resolve performance problems on the job. Many people stay in a company because they can learn from their superiors or mentors on the job.

In Figure 3.4, a gardening analogy is used to show the differences between Periodic Results Reviews and Annual Performance Appraisals.

When you plant seeds at the beginning of the year, it is like setting targets. You expect them to grow into healthy plants (results desired or expected). To enable them to do this, you have to observe them regularly, and water them when necessary. Periodically, you may need to spray on pesticides if insects and pests attack the plants (problem-solving with coaching and counseling). You add fertilizers (motivate and communicate through feedback and listening) to improve the viability of the plant.

Figure 3.4. Periodic Results Reviews and Annual Appraisal Compared

So the supervisor's role during the periodic results review is to nurture and help to solve problems that might prevent targets from being met. This is diagnostic evaluation.

At the end of the year, the gardener looks at the plant and concludes whether it is a healthy plant or not. The gardener is now a judge, and has to decide what to do next if the plant does not meet expectations. Try different fertilizers or pesticides? Water more/less frequently? Move the plant to a different location?

If the plant meets expectations, then the next thing to do is to enhance its growth, to enable more and better blooms or fruits with the same nurturing as before. With human beings, we reinforce good performance with rewards and nurture their talents for future roles in the organization.

Key Points to Ponder

• To manage for commitment is to win the heart and the mind of the performer.

• Performance Management is exercising managerial leadership, while Performance Measurement is part of managerial planning and control.

• Leaders turn people on by motivating, communicating, coaching and counseling.

• Effective motivators give credit when due and provide constructive feedback when performance is below expectations.

• Effective communicators listen well and handle conflicts, resulting in mutually beneficial outcomes.

• Good performance is a function of the performer's willingness to perform and ability to perform.

• Willingness to perform with commitment and passion is the heartbeat of a results-management system.

• Ability to perform requires understanding, acceptance and application.

• Performance coaching and counseling are processes for diagnosing performance problems.

• A periodic results-review session provides the organizational platform for the line manager to reinforce good performance and diagnose performance problems that persist.

• A periodic results review is not a mini-appraisal. It is assessing and reviewing work in progress, not work completed.

^[1]

^[2]