When I discuss my posts on performance appraisal and contingent rewards with people I get a lot of great understanding and support…but there’s always one question that pops up: “but then how will you deal with the slackers?”
Putting to one side whether our management instruments actually ‘deal with the slackers’ at the present, I find this an understandable response from within a command-and-control management system.
I usually find myself responding with:
“…and why do you think they are ‘slacking’*…do you think they want to perform an unfulfilling job all day long? Do you think this is how they started out when they got the job?”
(* if indeed they are ‘slacking’…our activity measures may present a different story than reality)
I then usually get: “yeah, but there will always be some people who take the p1ss!”
This uncovers a pretty hollow view of people. I’m not criticising people for thinking this …it’s more a recognition of the likely environments that people have had to endure through our working lives.
I would respond with a Deming quote to ponder:
“Anyone that enjoys his work is a pleasure to work with.”
- You and I want to enjoy our work…and the environment that we work within will have a monumental influence on this;
- I absolutely ‘get’ that there will almost always be a small % of people that sit outside the normal bell curve…but should we be designing our management system for the 5% or the 95%?
- Do we tar everyone with the 5% brush?
- Do we effectively yet compassionately deal with this 5% now?
- Does it make sense that people ‘decay’ to being seen in this 5% bracket?
Regarding dead wood: “Why do we hire live wood and kill it?”
Kohn puts a deliberate order to his suggested actions (see the bottom of the ‘Exercise in Futility‘ post) and he most certainly doesn’t stop at removing contingent rewards and stopping performance appraisals…this is actually the point at which the real (and interesting) work can start to be done, with the process performers on collaboration, content and choice.
Okay, so you still think you’ve got a slacker:
If we are to consider the ‘slacker’ accusation, we also need to consider the other side of this coin, the supposed ‘talent’. Together, we can call these ‘outstanding performers’ where, as Scholtes explains:
We need to “use ‘outstanding’ in the statistical sense, not in the psychological sense.
Statistically*, ‘outstanding’ refers to something occurring outside the current capabilities of the system.” …and therefore it makes it worth investigating as to what is happening and why.
* Note: There is variety in everything. We should not be tampering when there is nothing special about this variety. So ‘John’ achieved more than ‘Bob’ this week…big deal, we would expect differences…but is it significant, and is it consistently so?
Scholtes provides the following guidelines for our response to outstanding performance:
First: Determine for certain if they are truly outstanding:
- Does (quality) data (properly) substantiate this ‘outstanding’ performance?
- Does this data cover a sufficient timescale to indicate consistent performance at this lower or higher level?
- Is there consensus among the outstanding performers’ peers (from observation, not gut reaction or rumours)
If the answer is ‘No’, it’s not actually outstanding!
If the answers to the above are all ‘Yes’ then:
Second: Investigate to discover what is behind this occurrence (using data!):
If the person is ‘positive’ outstanding, do they (for example):
- use better methods which can be taught to others?
- put in more hours?
- have a wider range of skills?
- have more experience?
- have more native talent?
If the person is ‘negative’ outstanding, do they (for example):
- need to learn a better method?
- need to pick up speed?
- need coaching or mentoring for a while?
- lack the basic requisites for the job?
- are they going through a difficult period?
And, depending on the explanation:
Third: Formulate an appropriate response:
For ‘positive’ outstanding:
- teach methods to others;
- provide higher pay* to recognise their change in market value (* but NOT contingent!)
- provide more latitude in job definition
For ‘negative’ outstanding:
- coaching, mentoring, training
- provide greater structure for a while
- get counselling and support
- find a more appropriate position
- Finally, sensitive and fair dismissal
If you take the last response, you still have a systems problem – you need to deal with how you ended up with this scenario.
Seddon deals with the issue of an individual’s supposed poor performance (and it being considered a ‘people problem’) in a similar vein to Scholtes. Put simply, there’s a whole host of questions that need to be asked about the system in which the individual operates before you can fairly arrive at the conclusion that the problem is with the individual.
The categories of questions, in order, are:
- Is it an information problem? (do they know purpose, capability, flow?)
- Is it a method problem? (waste? system conditions such as structures, policies, measurement, IT?)
- Are extrinsic motivators the problem? (i.e. distractions from intrinsic motivation)
- Is it a knowledge problem? (necessary knowledge to do the job?)
- Is it a selection problem? (necessary attributes to do the job?)
All of the above are the responsibility of management to resolve.
- Finally, is it a willingness problem?
Then, and only then can you conclude that you probably have the wrong person for the job.
“95% of the reasons for failure to meet customer expectations are related to deficiencies in the system…rather than the employee…
…the role of management is to change the system rather than badgering individuals to do better.” (Deming)
It’s very easy for a manager to blame a person. It’s a lot harder for them to work out what the systemic cause is. One of these approaches can improve the system, the other cannot.
A final Deming quote to ponder:
Question from ‘Management’: [what you are saying] “implies the abolition of the annual merit rating system [performance appraisals] and of management by [cascaded] objectives….but what will we do instead?”
Deming’s response: “Try leadership.”