No, this is not another piece on the debt crisis. I’m Irish. Though I do follow the American news in some depth, I certainly don’t want to weigh in on that topic.
I’m talking about news reports that came out a couple of weeks ago about the performance management process for Federal workers in the U.S.
Evil HR Lady Susanne Lucas reported in Bnet on news out of the Merit Systems Protection Board:
“The federal government fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 — 11,668 employees in its 2.1 million workforce. Research shows that the private sector fires about 3% of workers annually for poor performance.”
Aside from the obvious insights (and jokes) that can be made about federal employees with little incentive to improve performance, what does such a low rate of “exiting” employees tell us in the federal workplace? I would argue the performance management process – especially frequent feedback and course corrections – is broken. And this is true in all sectors – not just the government.
A separate report in the Federal Times made this quite clear in its attempt to explain the duties of a task force created to make poor performers more accountable:
“The Employee Performance Management Work Group, made up of top personnel officials, labor leaders and other employee representatives, is holding weekly meetings to discuss ways to improve performance management. Its three subgroups are focusing on:
- Overcoming challenges hindering performance accountability.
- Giving employees clear expectations and constant feedback on performance.
- Improving performance management training.
“Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry in March outlined his desire to improve performance management in the government, which has long been recognized as lacking. ...
“OPM Deputy Chief of Staff Justin Johnson said at Wednesday's labor-management council meeting that all three subgroups have focused on the need for better feedback mechanisms, so employees aren't surprised when their managers raise performance problems in evaluations.”
Eliminating the “Surprise” Factor in Performance Reviews
Call me an optimist, but I believe all employees in all sectors of work want to do a good job. Many give up, however, because over time they don’t know what “doing a good job” looks like anymore. Nobody is giving them the feedback they need – positive and constructive – for them to know what they should correct as well as what they should continue doing.
There are three lessons all managers can learn from the federal government’s experience described above:
- Good management is defined by frequent feedback and course correction for those they manage.
- An annual performance review should be just that – a review of the year’s performance with no surprises for either party.
- Successfully managing performance through frequent feedback and praise creates a better work environment for all.
How frequently do you give or receive feedback? Do you know what “doing a good job” looks like in your organization?
As Globoforce’s Head of Strategic Consulting, Derek Irvine is an internationally minded management professional with over 20 years of experience helping global companies set a higher ambition for global strategic employee recognition, leading workshops, strategy meetings and industry sessions around the world. His articles on fostering and managing a culture of appreciation through strategic recognition have been published in Businessweek, Workspan and HR Management. Derek splits his time between Dublin and Boston. Follow Derek on Twitter at @DerekIrvine.
Comments