Here's another article on compensation communication. I hesitated to write it for you because I thought, "Why do they want to hear AGAIN that most of the world (that includes you) is making a hash of it?" Nothing like getting bad feedback over and over again to make a person stop listening or caring. (Thinking performance reviews, of course.)
But in a world that glorifies disruptive innovation, I thought I'd give you a different look at the following findings from a Harris Poll, conducted on behalf of a firm called "Interact," that were reported in the Harvard Business Review. Following years of studying these issues, I don't think these findings are bad -- or surprising -- at all. (They aren't fabulous either, so hang on for a few helpful suggestions.)
- 37% of their sample of managers reported that they are uncomfortable having to give direct feedback/criticism about an employee's performance (to which an employee might respond poorly).
- 19% report difficulty giving clear directions.
- 16% report difficulty crediting others with good ideas.
- 20% report difficulty demonstrating vulnerability by sharing mistakes they learned from.
I've run into far more negative results in other, past surveys, so I am mildly reassured by these findings. As the teamwork model evolves further into everyday business life, some of these behaviors may be improving because they are getting more scrutiny. But keep in mind that the survey asked about self-reported behaviors, so you can imagine that some of those managers were being pretty kind to themselves.
A reality check based on experience would tell you that the percentages are higher. For example, let's imagine what the employees' responses would be. Just guessing, but here goes:
- 50% to 60% of managers fumble giving direct, negative feedback.
- 30% of managers give unclear directions.
- At least 25% have difficulty crediting others with good ideas.
- 35% have difficulty demonstrating vulnerability.
Just nice to know? Here's the practical, business results side of this. These habits are exactly the ones that drive employees crazy to the point that they cut into productivity. (Think about your own experience and there's lots of data, too.)
And can we reasonably expect that, human nature being what it is, these weaknesses will ever be eradicated? Nope.
So why does much of our training for managers focus on "how to do it" -- fill out performance management forms, conduct meetings, give ratings -- with little discussion about, or self insight into, the emotional aspects of the job?
What if we screened managers and prioritized training for the ones who had the most difficulty with the interpersonal aspects of the job, then included well-designed opportunities for talking about (and resolving) insecurity or misconceptions about looking weak, the difficulties balancing employee time with deliverable dates, avoiding employees looking for feedback because there are easier things to do, and so on?
Helping managers, and everyone else for that matter, to self-assess and self-correct would be far more effective than sticking them in front of hours of PowerPoint screens, which research keeps recording as the common HR practice. Rather than hoping a manager grows into self-reflection, counseling them on its value is an investment that is rarely made. But it could become a promising disruptive innovation in manager training, don't you think?
May the road rise to meet you, may the wind be always at your back -- as long as you celebrate St. Patrick's Day by getting yourself a ration of common sense from the popular ebook, Everything You Do (in Compensation) Is Communication @ www.everythingiscommunication.com. Margaret O'Hanlon, CCP collaborated with Ann Bares and Dan Walter to create this DIY guide to compensation leadership. Margaret is founder and Principal of re:Think Consulting. She brings deep expertise in compensation, communications and leadership to topics like the CEO Pay Ratio and performance management discussions at the Café. Before founding re:Think Consulting, Margaret was a Principal at Willis Towers Watson.
You can never talk about communications 'too much' because it is done so badly nearly everywhere. One piece of information from the CEOs we spoke to about communications was focused on the 'performance feedback'. Many CEOs believed performance management in their organizations had lost communications value and had become a 'forms design exercise'. By this they believed HR constantly reworked the 'tool' used to support performance communications trying to figure out how many 'levels' of performance should be on the form and what each 'level' should be 'called'.
Because of this many CEOs believed the communications about pay and performance was constantly 'under study' and managers were constantly trying to 'de-code' the forms design process. Not that this is the "Holy Grail" of what is going on but it did cause Pat and I to spend little time designing forms and more time coaching people responsible for giving and getting performance feedback and translating it into whatever rewards were tied to the process.
Decades ago when I was working for Rand Corporation/System Development Corporation, we had some contracts to explore performance management in the Air Force. After a year we surrendered the funding because 'time in grade' was such a powerful culture-dominating factor that performance was seldom a factor in rewards or promotion.
Communications certainly does matter but only when you have something useful to communicate.
Posted by: Jay Schuster | 03/17/2016 at 01:39 PM
Thanks, Margaret for re-validating eternal truths here. The newest research out right now focuses on the integral role constructive feedback plays in the most successful "innovative" performance management techniques. While it is hardly a new idea, frequent feedback is far more effective than education or "training." Most workers are perfectly capable of doing their jobs properly. Performance deficiencies always occur for reasons unrelated to competency.
As Margaret and Jay note, most managers lack the will to exercise whatever effective supervisory skills they possess. Many/most would rather completely avoid the discomfort of leveling with their direct reports. How do we inspire managers to grow spines so they can lead as supervisors?
Posted by: E. James (Jim) Brennan | 03/17/2016 at 04:53 PM
Gosh, Jim. Is that the role of HR folks to 'inspire' people to give accurate and constructive feedback? One of the reasons we often see a 'bad rap' on HR folks is they don't do a good job of giving and getting 'feedback' in their own 'can of worms'. Perhaps starting with setting a good example?
Does anyone who is a practitioner have the answer to Jim's 'right on' question? Does anybody have a case history of how you got managers to do things they don't want to do? That would be very valuable.
Posted by: Jay Schuster | 03/17/2016 at 05:46 PM
I spent 23 years in the Air Force as a personnel officer, and my experience is that performance was the key variable in determining officer promotions, assignments, and retention in most instances. I probably served after Jay had his experience.
Regarding the spine problem Jim refers to. If you tell someone to do something, set expectations, in no uncertain terms, they generally comply. They might need some pointers or training, but they want to do their jobs and please their bosses to keep their jobs, progress, and get pay increases.
If people can't give honest performance reviews, perhaps they should not be supervisors.
Posted by: Harold | 03/17/2016 at 08:14 PM
One thing that hasn't changed in the Air Force since Jay was a consultant to them, is that regular base pay increases do not depend on officer performance, but on time in service (every 2 years). The AF does not have a merit pay system.
Posted by: Harold | 03/19/2016 at 10:36 AM