Employees Don’t Need Their Performance Managed

What was your first reaction when you read the statement in the title? Were you the reader thinking I was crazy, the one wondering if they don’t need to be managed, why we have a performance management process, or are you the reader who already believes this?

None of those reactions are right or wrong because we all come from different experiences and viewpoints on the topic. I believe that managing performance is only necessary when an issue has arisen.

In 2015, I started hearing about the work Deloitte was doing to change its performance management focus. (To read the case study on the Deloitte findings, you can use the link in the comments.) At the same time, I was part of the team that started working on Accenture’s performance transformation.  The intentions were clear in both organizations; too much time and money were being spent on a system and process that might not be doing what was intended – drive better performance. 

Going back to why I think managing employee performance is unnecessary…

I’ve never met a person (though I’m sure there is someone out there) that didn’t want to be perceived as doing a good job in their role. Individuals want to show up as competent employees. 

So why do leaders of organizations believe people need management oversight?

The answer is that often, performance expectations are not being met.  The assumption might be that someone isn’t good at doing their job, but what I’ve seen is usually more related to the following three issues:

• The expectations of the employee are not clear. 

• The outcome is not painted fully. 

• What good or great looks like isn’t a shared understanding.

The supervisor, manager, or leader may believe that they told someone the task and what the outcome needs to be, but that doesn’t mean that the employee always has an aligned perception. What is said and heard may be two different things that could lead to an approach that results in a significantly different outcome.

According to work done at Deloitte in 2015, they identified three outcomes that were needed in the new process:

“Two objectives for our new system, then, were clear: We wanted to recognize performance, and we had to be able to see it clearly. But all our research, all our conversations with leaders on the topic of performance management, and all the feedback from our people left us convinced that something was missing. Is performance management at root more about “management” or about “performance”? Put differently, although it may be great to be able to measure and reward the performance you have, wouldn’t it be better still to be able to improve it?

Our third objective therefore became to fuel performance.”

If you focus on their third objective, fueling performance, the question about your organization’s performance program and process shifts. It’s not about managing an employee’s performance; it’s about enabling them to perform better each day.

When you think about supporting an employee to perform better each day, the role becomes more of a coach and less of a manager. The role now is focused on establishing clear expectations, providing real-time coaching on what’s working or not working, connecting the employee to resources that will support their growth or performance, holding individuals accountable to commitments, and recognizing successes and growth. Unless there is a reason for concern, the role isn’t about ensuring that someone is logged in at the right time or spends enough time on a task or how they will get to the necessary outcome. 

As a leader, you’re there to manage performance when expectations aren’t being met, but your primary function is to fuel and accelerate the growth and performance of your employees.

I’d love to hear your feedback on this perspective. Share your insights in the comments.