Editor's Note: Do your performance management practices - in truth and not just on paper - sufficiently consider behavior in addition to results? Chuck Csizmar on this Classic balancing act and the price you may pay for overlooking the former in an effort to drive the latter.
When reviewing an employee's performance, what do you as a manager look at? Results, right? You'll try to be as objective as you can, considering quantifiable metrics like deadlines met, sales targets achieved, projects launched, budget compliance and products or services delivered. Figures don't seem to lie.
But is that the whole job? Is that all you expect from your employees, a targeted end result? Or is there more involved when you consider what successful performance means to you and your company? Are you assessing an employee against the "complete" job, or just the visible tip of the iceberg?
How you get it done
For many companies performing the "complete" job encompasses the how as well as the what. An increasing number of organizations are recognizing that the manner in which results were achieved (the how) has a bearing on the impact of the results (opportunities reached or missed, short vs. long term thinking, building relationships, etc.). They are coming to realize that employee behavior can also create ripple effects with other employees, as well as with clients, suppliers and even with the organization's reputation in the community. And those ripples can have negative consequences.
Have you ever seen a touchdown called back because of a penalty? The points get taken off the board.
So how we view success is not just about results, or at least it shouldn't be. Organizations are considering in the overall assessment "how" the work was done, as sometimes an employee's behavior can affect not only their own individual results - but the success of other employees as well.
An employee who doesn't cooperate with others, who displays arrogance, takes undue risks, alienates vendors, or is self-centered and doesn't have the company's financial interests in mind - that person is like a bull in the china shop of your business, a time bomb waiting to explode.
What will the casualties look like?
- Bodies in the hallway: Not literally, but an "end justifies the means" mentality takes no prisoners and can be ruthless with co-workers. It's every man for himself and you'd better get out of the way.
- Nobody likes Bob: This is the employee that no one wants to work with, who doesn't understand the word "collaborate" and who doesn't share toys with anyone. They don't receive Christmas cards.
- Ethics? What are ethics? This is the short-cut artist, who isn't above bending the rules well past recognition, as long as their tactics gain a short term advantage or deliver results.
- Loss of respect: Here we have the player who may gain measureable results, but for whom few workers have a professional trust or respect. And for those we don't respect we don't move mountains or go the extra mile.
How managers act
Some managers have a short term focus, anxious to sidestep their own pressures by looking only at results achieved; the monthly or quarterly figures. But the impact of a "results first and always" business practice plants seeds for eventual ruin as behavioral factors may eventually supersede the value of gaining those quick results.
- Lost business: The most direct impact, where inappropriate employee behavior has sent a customer or client heading for the exit.
- Talent drain: "I'm outta here" is an often heard refrain from employees no longer willing to deal with certain employees. How many high caliber employees can you afford to lose?
- Negative press: You don't want to see your company exposed by the media, unless such self-advertising was orchestrated by your own people. The company will be splattered by the same mud when employees are caught for their transgressions.
So have a care when considering what you view as successful employee performance. After all, it's easy to simply look at the figures to assess what results were delivered.
It's a bit more challenging to tell employees that an assessment of the complete job requires that the behavior surrounding those results is going to get a look-see as well.
Chuck Csizmar CCP is founder and Principal of CMC Compensation Group, providing global compensation consulting services to a wide variety of industries and non-profit organizations. He is also associated with several HR Consulting firms as a contributing consultant. Chuck is a broad based subject matter expert with a specialty in international and expatriate compensation. He lives in Central Florida (near The Mouse) and enjoys growing fruit and managing (?) a clowder of cats.
Comments