Fearless Performance Reviews: Coaching Conversations that Turn Every Employee into a Star Player - Softcover

Russell, Jeff; Russell, Linda

Softcover

ISBN 10: 0071804722 ISBN 13: 9780071804721

Publisher: McGraw Hill, 2013

Synopsis

Turn the performance review process into a performance enhancement process

Fearless Performance Reviews introduces a groundbreaking new framework that transforms not just the review process but the entire relationship between coach and employee.

Experts Jeffrey and Linda Russell replace the traditional performance review with the Performance Coaching Conversation, a bottom-up alternative in which the employee takes the lead both during the review process and throughout the entire performance cycle.

“Fearless Performance Reviews is a great way to step new and experienced supervisors through a much more effective process for performance reviews. The process that is described in the book really does take the fear out of both sides of the performance assessment process.”
―Dawn Thistle, Organizational Learning Manager, Springs Window Fashions

“Getting to the goal of effective performance reviews requires collaboration. What better way to share the journey to success than to agree on the route. Jeff and Linda offer us a powerful and clear framework for making the review process more collaborative and gives us a framework rather than a script.”
―Annamarie Shanahan, HR Director, Plastic Ingenuity

About this title

About the Author

Jeffrey and Linda Russell are principals of Russell Consulting, Inc. (RCI) which helps leaders, managers, supervisors, and teams build effective and productive organizations.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

FEARLESS PERFORMANCE REVIEWS

COACHING CONVERSATIONS THAT TURN EVERY EMPLOYEE INTO A STAR PLAYER

By JEFFREY RUSSELL, LINDA RUSSELL

McGraw-Hill Education

Copyright © 2014 Jeffrey Russell and Linda Russell
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-07-180472-1

Contents

Preface
Introduction: The Idea of Fearless Reviews
1 Why the Fear in Reviews?
PART 1 THE MY-WAY MINDSET
2 What is the My-Way Mindset?
3 Governing Values and Underlying Assumptions of the My-Way Mindset
4 Enacting Behaviors of the My-Way Unilateralist
PART 2 THE COLLABORATIVE MINDSET
5 Transforming Relationships and Reviews Through the Collaborative 
Mindset
6 The Governing Values of the Collaborative Mindset
7 Underlying Assumptions of the Collaborative Mindset
8 Enacting Behaviors for Collaboration
9 Where It All Leads
PART 3 WHAT TO DO WITH ALL YOU'VE LEARNED
10 The Purpose of Performance Reviews
11 Establishing a Framework
12 Diagnosing Why Things Go Right or Wrong
13 Laying Down the Foundation for Success
14 Identifying and Developing Goals for the Coaching Conversation
15 Actions to Take to Start Moving in the Right Direction
16 Putting Your Hard Work Into Action
Appendix A: Performance Coaching Conversation Preparation Guide
Appendix B: Common Questions and Answers About Fearless Performance 
Reviews
Notes
Index

CHAPTER 1

Why the Fear in Reviews?

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, thenwe are a sorry lot indeed.

—Albert Einstein, German-born theoretical physicist

Years ago, our client Brenda called us because she was afraid. Her performancereview was coming up the next week, and she was concerned about being ambushedand blindsided by her manager. "I know this guy all too well," she said, "and Ijust don't trust him." Brenda went on to ask if we would be willing to sit in onthe review to keep things accurate and, more importantly, safe.

Our response to Brenda was cautious: "That's not a role that we typically play,"we said, "but we're open to the possibility. Let us think about this a bit andget back to you." We were somewhat hesitant because we normally don't getinvolved in facilitating supervisor–employee discussions.

About 30 minutes later, while we were still pondering whether to get involved,our phone rang again. This time it was a supervisor on the line, saying that hehad a performance review with a difficult employee the following week. "I waswondering," Tom asked, "if you'd be willing to sit in on this review to keepthings more level headed. Frankly, this employee is pretty volatile, and I'dlike someone there as an insurance policy. I find her pretty intimidating, and,"he added, "I just don't trust her."

Yes, you guessed it. Tom was Brenda's supervisor. Without hesitating, we saidyes to Tom's request—with the qualifier, "as long as Brenda's open to us beingthere." Tom clearly sounded relieved. Tom said that he'd clear it with Brendaand that, unless we heard from him to the contrary, he would see us at thereview the following week.

What Brings Out the Fear?

So why did Tom and Brenda feel anxiety and fear as they each approached thisannual performance review? What caused them to dread this encounter so much thatthey needed a third party to mediate what should have been a prettystraightforward discussion of the past year of Brenda's performance?

Before we get into the origins of fear in Brenda and Tom's situation, let's stepback from their unique relationship and explore what it is about performancereviews in general that too often brings anxiety, if not fear, bubbling to thesurface in both employees and supervisors.

In our experience, performance reviews often produce uncomfortable feelings inboth parties due to the following reasons.

It Seems There's a Lot at Stake

And sometimes there is! Organizations often try to pack a lot into performancereviews—expecting them to be a primary driver of merit-based raises, anchoringpromotions to good reviews, surfacing high potentials based upon review ratings,and so forth. Beyond the stakes set by the organization, there are even higherstakes from both the employee's and supervisor's perspectives.

For employees the personal and professional stakes include professionalcompetence, credibility, and reputation; self-esteem and self-worth; jobsecurity; career growth and opportunities; and personal pride. These stakes areunique in that they aren't defined by organizations but by employees themselves.A sense of self-worth and professional integrity as well as possible careergrowth contribute to the importance and potential long-term consequences of theperformance review.

But what's at stake for supervisors? Aren't they just raising the stakes foremployees? What do they have on the line? For anyone who has held the title ofsupervisor, the stakes at performance reviews are just as clear as they are foremployees: a sense of competence as a supervisor, the ability to maintain asense of control or influence over the situation, the feeling of responsibilityfor employees' performance failures, and future career growth as a manager orleader at the organization.

The Process Seems Overly Judgmental

For employees, the anxiety and fear arise in part from the perception that theirprofessional accomplishments and contributions are being judged as worthy ornot. Rather than a forward-leaning developmental method, the performance reviewhas a reputation as a backward-looking process that examines an entire year'sworth of the employee's performance and then grades that performance asexemplary, good, satisfactory, needing improvement, or unacceptable. Employeesfeel judged when their entire performance life seems to have been reduced to acheckbox. And why shouldn't they feel anxiety and even fear about that?

Not surprisingly, supervisors have as much difficulty with passing judgment asemployees have with being judged. They may not feel confident that they know theemployee's work well enough to accurately assess the employee's performance.Even if supervisors feel comfortable with the accuracy of a performanceassessment, they may still feel uncomfortable knowing that their judgment of anemployee's performance is likely to have an impact upon the employee's image,reputation, and future success at the organization. Checking a box on theperformance review form seems easy to do, but good supervisors understand theimpact of such judgments. And that's a heavy—and frightening—burden to have ontheir shoulders.

The Review Process Sometimes Raises Uncomfortable Truths

The greatest value of a performance review comes from an honest discussion ofwhat's working and what's not. Unfortunately, for many people, getting to thatlevel of honesty is hard. It's hard to hear it, and it's hard to speak it.

Who wants to hear their boss point out mistakes they have made? Who enjoyshearing their supervisor talk about an oversight or a bad decision that led toless-than-desirable outcomes? Yes, "to err is human," but none of us wants tomake mistakes or be exposed by others as someone who is flawed.

How does it feel for the person sharing these truths? Speaking truthfully can bepretty uncomfortable. Supervisors often don't have the communication skill setto speak clearly and directly about employees' performance shortcomings andfailures. Not having the skills or the self-confidence to share theseuncomfortable truths raises the supervisor's anxiety level even further. What'sthe best way to deal with the employee's reaction to constructive feedback?What's the most effective strategy to use when the employee becomes defensive,denies that there's a problem, cries, or blames others? It can be difficult tohandle these situations tactfully.

People May Feel Blamed for a Problem

Due to many of the aforementioned sources of fear in performance reviews andbecause the review is focused on the employee's performance, there is a tendencyfor the employee being reviewed to feel blamed for performance problems ratherthan to use the review to examine underlying causes of performance challenges.And, unfortunately, blame never really moves any performance conversation towarda positive outcome. While it might get someone's attention, blame usually justresults in defensiveness and denial. When people feel blamed they tend to goundercover.

People Aren't Skilled at Performance Reviews

It's actually quite rare for someone to sit us down and teach us how to eithergive or receive feedback gracefully or effectively. When training supervisors inthe performance review process, too much time is spent on how to fill out thereview form and too little time on how to structure the conversation. At bestthe skills training for supervisors covers such topics as how to giveconstructive feedback (e.g., focus on behaviors not the person, make it timely,be descriptive), and at worst supervisors are introduced to the infamous"sandwich" technique: start with what the employee is doing well, shift to wherethe employee needs improvement, and then end with another positive affirmationabout the employee's performance. A further complicating factor is that we don'tdo them often enough to refine the skills we do have. The once-a-year reviewdoesn't facilitate our ability to learn what works and what doesn't. On thewhole, the lack of useful training and the infrequency of reviews lead tosupervisors not having the skills they need to make the review a meaningful,two-way dialogue about the employee's performance.

Oddly, organizations expend almost no effort at building employees' skills inreceiving feedback or playing a proactive and leading role during theperformance review. Too often employees are seen as passive receivers of thereview rather than active and equal contributors. As a result, withoutsupervisors having the right skills or mindset to facilitate constructiveengagement and learning, uncertainty, anxiety, and fear tend to loom large in anemployee's mind leading up to and during the review.

There's Too Much Uncertainty

Reviews are often filled with surprises that catch both the employee andsupervisor off guard. If reviews occur only once or twice a year or if therelationship between the players is strained, this is even more likely to occur.In the absence of frequent and ongoing performance conversations throughout theyear, neither party to the review knows what to expect.

From the supervisor's perspective, uncertainty comes in the form of not knowinghow the employee will react to performance feedback or not knowing whatinformation the employee has about performance challenges that, once shared,might compel the supervisor to reassess her understanding of the causes andsolutions to such challenges.

From an employee's perspective, uncertainty comes from not knowing whatperformance issues the supervisor will raise during the review. Will thesupervisor focus on problems or challenges from the distant past? Will she focuson recent issues where the employee may have struggled? Will the supervisorshare feedback from peers, clients, customers, or other departments regardingthe employee's past performance? With uncertainty about what issues will beraised during the review, employees are likely to be anxious and fearful.

People Feel a Loss of Control

Performance reviews often create situations (due to the issues cited above)where one or both parties to the review feel that their ability to maintaincontrol over their work life or future is likely to be impaired. Due to the factthat the supervisor, in the end, gets to determine the final performanceassessment along with the consequences of this assessment on the employee'ssalary, career potential, status in the organization, and so forth, an employeemay feel powerless to effectively influence this final assessment—especially ifthe relationship between the two of them isn't strong.

Supervisors might also feel a loss of control during a performance reviewbecause they may not be able to control the direction of the conversation. Asyou will learn in Chapter 2, we believe that control is an illusion. Asupervisor focused on maintaining control during a performance review is takingprecisely the wrong approach. If the supervisor is attempting to control thereview conversation to ensure that the employee agrees with the review ratingand accepts the next steps for improving performance going forward, thesupervisor will likely experience anxiety and fear that something during thereview is likely to go wrong.

Many Performance Reviews Tend to Be One-Way Conversations

The annual review tends to be one-sided: the supervisor presents an overview ofhis assessment of the employee's past year of performance, and the employeelistens and responds. While sometimes supervisors take steps to make the processmore interactive, because supervisors usually drive the performance reviewconversation, the employee's involvement in the process tends to be morereactive than interactive.

This one-way conversation creates anxiety for the supervisor who feelsresponsible for doing most of the heavy lifting: doing a performance analysis,identifying the employee's strengths and improvement areas, examining the causesof performance problems, identifying goals for the review, and anticipating andpreparing for the employee's reactions. Carrying the weight of leading thisprocess while at the same time being fair and doing the right thing for theemployee creates a lot of stress and anxiety—not to mention eats up a lot oftime.

The one-sided nature of this process also creates anxiety for the employee forobvious reasons: the employee is in a reactive and/or defensive mode, thesupervisor sets the agenda for the discussion and may focus on a narrow set ofperformance outcomes rather than maintaining a balanced and holisticperspective, and finally—because the employee is reacting to the supervisor'sassessment—he may not feel comfortable asserting a narrative that is differentfrom the supervisor's.

In any given performance review only some of these anxiety- or fear-inducingcharacteristics may be in effect for one or both parties. In other cases, all ofthem can come into play in ways that make a meaningful process almost impossibleto achieve.

Let's return to the performance review example that we started this chapterwith: Brenda and Tom. The sources of Brenda's fear and anxiety as the reviewapproached emerged from a confluence of the causes that we've listed above:

• There was a lot at stake for her—particularly her sense of self-esteem andcompetence as well as her reputation and image within the company.

• She believed that she was being unfairly judged and would be labeled as lessthan a star performer.

• She was sure that Tom would bring up performance problems in a way that wouldmake her feel like a failure.

• She thought that she would be blamed for things that were outside her control.

• She wasn't sure what would be included in Tom's feedback to her (uncertainty).

• She felt that Tom was in the driver's seat and that she was locked in thetrunk. She felt powerless to offer what she believed would be a more accurateassessment of her performance.

• Based upon her past experience with Tom's approach to reviews, she knew thatit would be a one-way review with little opportunity for her to tell a differentstory—except by reacting defensively on issues that she expected him to raiseduring the review.

Brenda essentially feared the review because she believed that Tom was biasedagainst her and had already judged her performance as a problem.

So that's what was going through Brenda's head prior to the review. But, whatwere the likely causes of supervisor Tom's fear and anxiety as the dayapproached?

Like Brenda, he too felt that there was a lot at stake—his credibility andcompetence as a supervisor were on the line, and, from his perspective, heseemed to be losing control of the situation to the extent that he didn'tbelieve he could manage the review effectively, especially considering what hesaw as Brenda's stubbornness. Tom was also fearful of raising uncomfortabletruths—his perceptions of Brenda's performance problems—knowing that she wouldpush back hard.

There's more. To put it simply, Tom just didn't know how to conduct the review.Although he had been a supervisor for years, he never felt comfortablestructuring and navigating the process. This was especially true whenever he wasdealing with an employee, like Brenda, who he felt was having performanceproblems. Finally, Tom was anxious and fearful of the review with Brenda becausehe felt that it was up to him to drive the conversation—that it was his job tolead the process and give her feedback. And he didn't expect to get much helpfrom Brenda. If anything, he expected her to be defensive and argumentative. ForTom this wasn't going to be easy, and that's why he sought out our assistance tohelp keep things as pleasant as possible, given the circumstances, and to ensurethat Brenda heard what she needed to hear and then agreed to take the rightactions to improve her performance in the proceeding year.

So, just imagine what this coming together looked like: two people,uncomfortable with honest conversation, fearful of the process, and mistrustingthe motives and intentions of each other, trying to have a meaningful discussionabout Brenda's job performance over the past 12 months. Even with us acting as aneutral third party to ensure a civil discourse, this performance review was notlikely to go well.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from FEARLESS PERFORMANCE REVIEWS by JEFFREY RUSSELL, LINDA RUSSELL. Copyright © 2014 Jeffrey Russell and Linda Russell. Excerpted by permission of McGraw-Hill Education.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: McGraw Hill
• Publication date: 2013
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0071804722
• ISBN 13: 9780071804721
• Binding: Paperback
• Edition number: 1
• Number of pages: 272