ABOVE ALL THE TRADITIONAL PARAMETERS OF WORK AND PEOPLE MANAGEMENT THAT WERE WELL PAST THEIR SELL-BY DATE AND IN NEED OF RADICAL REINVENTION BEFORE COVID, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT HAS EMERGED AS THE UNDISPUTED AUNT SALLY. IN THE CONVENTIONAL WORKPLACE SETTING, PM WAS AT BEST DIVISIVE AND LACKING RELEVANCE AND AT WORSE PRECLUSIVE AND DEMOTIVATING. NOW, FACED WITH A FUTURE THAT HAS VERY LITTLE IN COMMON WITH THE WORKFORCE CONVENTIONS OF A PAST FOR WHICH IT WAS DEVISED, PM MUST EVOLVE
Two simple words, put together, are guaranteed to strike fear into the hearts of both hard-pushed and under pressure managers and their charges, namely Performance Management. We think of PM in terms of one of two situations – either the management of under-performers going through a formal policy or process, or the more regular and less formal review, during which objectives are agreed upon. Needless to say, there is a great deal more to performance management than these two processes and procedures
Ultimately performance management is, or certainly should be, about supporting employees to perform at their best. There are many ways to achieve this, including the provision of coaching and mentoring, formal training and development, effective objective setting and career conversations. As many HR practitioners will know, performance management, as we typically undertake it, can be fraught with tensions and challenges and this is especially true of periodic appraisals. Whilst organisations will have their own specific approaches to employee reviews, such processes generally involve employee and manager meeting for a structured conversation to discuss performance, the outcomes of which are recorded and stored. Sometimes, these documents are never to be seen again, until the next review is due. HR, forced into a compliance role, creates the process and monitors completion rates. This of course tells us little about the quality of such conversations, nor their usefulness for career development.
Such processes are often unpopular – employees dislike being reviewed and managers dislike doing the reviewing – particularly when there is poor feedback to impart. Many appraisal processes also include an assessment of overall performance, either through the subjective opinions of managers or a formal rating system. Ratings systems are particularly problematic when organisations require employees to be graded on a curve – these can result in reduced employee engagement and are not typically effective methods of performance assessment. The subjective nature of performance appraisal brings with it other issues. Firstly, there is the potential for unconscious bias to influence this activity and one such bias is known as the ‘recency effect’, where we tend to be over influenced by recent performance rather than performance further back in time. We also tend to conflate presence with performance and this a critical problem in the assessment of remote employees and may result in poorer than deserved ratings. The overall effectiveness of reviews can depend on manager capability to provide meaningful feedback, as well as the design of the process itself. Indeed, poorly designed processes have also been associated with gender bias, as managers have been found to perceive the same behaviours differently, depending on whether it is a man or a woman that demonstrates them.
n or a woman that demonstrates them. Too many of the approaches to performance management were designed for a working world which no longer exists and it looks as if the trend towards hybrid work is holding. Data from the Office of National Statistics found that in January 2023 around 28 percent of the UK labour market was undertaking some form of hybrid work. If we extrapolate that using data on the size of the labour market, this means over nine million people are working in a location flexible way. Compare and contrast this with the less than five percent of people, who regularly worked remotely in late 2019 and the true scale of this shift becomes clear. It is not, however, only remote work that we need to consider. Interest is rising too in forms of time flexibility, with a trial of a four-day week concluding recently with positive outcomes here in the UK. Remote work also allows for other forms of time flexibility, such as a non-linear working day. But with flexibility comes a need for greater effectiveness in performance management. We need to address the process issues that already existed pre-pandemic and create better approaches for the flexible era. To the point, we need to fundamentally redesign our approach to performance, especially performance reviews. HR practitioners need to take steps to adapt performance review processes, as well as provide support, training and guidance to those people managers who undertake them. The first step is to make sure that review conversations and assessments of performance are effective, fair and accurate.
In a flexible working environment, performance needs to be evaluated through outcomes, not just outputs – such as the overall contribution that an employee delivers to their role, team, department or the organisation – and the value that they add. Reviews must also contain well written, focused and up-to-date objectives. Arguably, this has always been an important aspect of performance management, but this need is amplified in a flexible working environment. When employees have clear and detailed objectives which are regularly discussed, there is less scope for misunderstanding and clear accountability for delivery. The OKR goal setting framework – objectives and key results – is especially suited to a hybrid working environment. An OKR has a single broad objective followed by around three-to-five measurable result areas. With a well written OKR, it should be easy to identify if the goal has been achieved and progress can be easily ascertained.
When managers see employees in person less frequently than they might have done pre pandemic, they need to adapt their overall approach to day-to-day management. Adopting a coaching style of management is suited to a flexible working environment and organisations should be building internal coaching capabilities. The reduced visibility of flexible work brings other challenges too – when performance issues do arise, they can be harder to identify. This increases the need for managers to have regular dialogue with their team about their work and workload. HR has long advocated that performance at work should be a continuous conversation – and now this aspect of performance management is more important than ever. Managers should be encouraged to meet with employees on a regular basis to discuss performance. They can no longer rely on the mythical ‘water cooler’ ad-hoc chat and a once-a-year formal review is no longer enough – if indeed it ever was.
One critical challenge in the performance management of flexible workers is the need to guard against a particular unconscious bias, proximity bias. This occurs when we default to, or subconsciously favour, those with whom we are in closer proximity. In the hybrid working environment this will mean those who are working in the office more frequently. Presenteeism is hard wired into many of our organisational cultures and society in general. We glorify those who work long hours, have side hustles and put in excessive face time. Not being visible has career outcomes for both pay and progression. Indeed, there is pre-pandemic research that suggests working remotely and its inherent reduction in face time, can lead to fewer opportunities for those employees. When we consider that women, disabled employees and people of colour are more likely to want to work flexibly, we can see the potential for problematic diversity outcomes too. A key priority should be to raise awareness of the potential for proximity bias in performance assessment so that managers can at least be aware of its existence. This will not in itself prevent it from occurring, but it can help managers to be more alert to their own biases and how these might show up in their reviews of performance and in everyday management activity such as allocating responsibilities and tasks. HR departments should also establish monitoring systems to identify who receives reward and recognition, promotion and development opportunities. If this turns out to be inperson employees, this can be quickly identified and steps taken to address it. Above all, when it comes to the performance management of flexible workers, we need to remember that presence does not equal performance. It’s about providing people with trust and autonomy and to help them to do their best work, wherever or whenever they are undertaking it.
FOR FURTHER INFO GEM@THEWORKCONSULTANCY.COM
