Reconstructing a Performance Management System
Here are two ideas from my book, Reconstructing Inclusion: Making DEI Accessible, Actionable, and Sustainable and other texts I leaned on in writing it. In addition, I’ve included one quote, a book recommendation, and a video or article that has inspired or influenced me and hopefully will resonate with you, too. (That’s ✌🏿+ 💡📚➕).
Page 116-117
"Liebig’s theory has likely not been regularly associated with organizations. However, when we look at it in an organizational context, we could say the same thing. There is always a weakest link. [At least a perception of one.] Assuming each link or component represents an individual, growth of the firm is equivalent to how everyone has developed, like how each link would be strengthened.
The growth of an organization is dependent on the strengthening of its least plentiful component. And, if the organization wants to continue to grow, it must consistently deconstruct and strengthen all its components. Only then will organizational capacity for change, agility, leadership, velocity, innovation, and collaboration expand. When we think about organizations and their people via a purported system of meritocracy, Liebig’s Law is contrarian.
Related post: Mindset, Expectations, and Clarity Overcome Meritocracy's Limitations
In fact, when people get a low rating in organizations, they often become targets for dismissal. Instead of being strengthened, the weakest link is eliminated. It is a flawed process that leaves people less than empowered and eventually causes harm to the entire organization.
When a low performer is ranked at the end of a year, they begin the next year worried about their future in the company. The result is like a self-fulfilling prophecy, as their fear drives them rather than their goals and purpose inspiring them. The employee begins a vicious cycle, thinking, “Due to my low-performance rating, I am now considered not so good.”
With that premise, HR works with the manager to start a performance improvement process [or plan] (PIP), which lays out everything that an employee must do in alignment with the manager’s desires. The so-called PIP usually isn’t really about performance improvement. It is about justification of the manager’s decision to move this person out of their line of sight as quickly and efficiently as possible while appearing to be impartial. PIPs are a farce.
Related video: What is your Thrive Score?
Page 117-118
"I once was asked to do a PIP for someone on my team. My manager indicated that a more senior executive had the impression — based on a half-hour meeting — that someone on my team seemed as if “they didn’t have it all together and that they weren’t [sufficiently] passionate about their role.”
The result was a suggestion that my team member be placed into some protocol to prove that they still had what it took to remain a member of my team.
At first, it was hard for me to believe the senior executive could make that assessment in thirty minutes. It seemed premature, and I was grateful that my boss didn’t immediately consent and proceed down the road of dismissal, as so often happens when an executive makes such comments about an individual.
Then, in response to the PIP, I said that I would not do it like a traditional HR-driven process. I refused to call it a PIP or frame it as punitive for my team member. Instead, I spoke openly with the team member about the situation, where they were, where they would like to improve, and how I could help. I also talked about areas where I saw growth potential. We regularly had conversations from the beginning of their reporting to me. Now, we were making it more deliberate and formal for stakeholders to have an account and be accountable ourselves.
Related post: Are you creating an “Inclusion System”?
Reconstructing Inclusion S1E7: Quantifying Intersectional Identity: The Value of Inclusive Data
We formally checked in around growth areas every two weeks. Informally, we talked about whom they could learn from and how they could refine specific skills. Our formal conversations were short, summarizing their work, exploring their engagement on projects, and their next steps. The informal discussions were about the how and where. How did they feel about the interactions? How might they think if they did it a bit differently or engaged with a few different people and perhaps more critical stakeholders who could give a record of their experiences? Where were they getting the most value from their action learning, and where else could they tap into similar energy?
The result was what some viewed as a complete turnaround. But was it? It was not a turnaround—it was a more deliberate path for development and growth. It wasn’t a plan to improve low performance. If we want to be explicit, we should all have development plans independent of what a performance management system prescribes. There is always space to grow and areas to improve one’s performance and impact.
Ask a professional athlete in any sport. They will tell you that their daily goal, game after game, practice after practice, is to improve performance. Whether they have a bad game or a good game, their objective is to keep getting better.
In organizational life, this is not consistently the framing. It should be (and I use the word “should” sparingly). And, if you are making your organization one where inclusion is normative (i.e., a system of inclusion), it is a must. . .
In organizational terms, it means releasing the mindset of erasing low performers— low performers are a natural and unavoidable consequence of measuring performance to begin with. Therefore, the organizational turn should be toward developing all employees and giving them tools to grow and succeed."
Related post: What's the relationship between DEI and Trust?
💡A Quote
“Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it, and by the same token save it from that ruin which except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and the young, would be inevitable. And education, too, is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new, something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world.”
― Hannah Arendt
📚A Book
The Arbinger Institute
From the Arbinger Institute Website: Through a relatable story about a man facing challenges on the job and in his family, Leadership and Self-Deception exposes the fascinating ways we can blind ourselves to our true motivations and unwittingly sabotage the effectiveness of our own efforts at success and happiness. It then illuminates the counterintuitive ways you can dramatically improve both your results and your relationships.
➕An Article
by Dr. Todd Kashdan’s Provoked
I hope this was helpful. . . Make it a great day! ✌🏿
In this episode of the ‘Reconstructing Inclusion’ podcast, let’s discuss the current state and “the attacks” on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and the need to redefine its contemporary frame. I talk about the concept of iatrogenic effects, drawing from the work of Ivan Illich, and its relevance in the DEI space. Why are self-reflection, intentional broadening, greater contact, and the promotion of agency in mitigating iatrogenic effects important in advancing the potential of DEI work?