Chapter 12
 Measuring Performance

In This Chapter

• Appraising individuals and teams
• Types of evaluations
• How peer appraisal works
• The leader’s performance interview with the team member

“How am I doing?” Everybody wants to know how he or she is doing on the job—and every team wants to know if it is performing up to the expectations of the team manager—and in turn, of the organization. That’s the main reason for performance appraisals.

Some of the other values of a good performance appraisal program are

• It ensures understanding of performance expectations by all members of the team.
• It builds confidence between the team leader and the team members.
• It identifies training and development needs.
• It fosters communication and feedback.

There are a variety of systems to measure performance of individuals and of teams. In this chapter we’ll look at some of these and how to make appraisals work in improving the team’s performance.

Individual vs. Team Appraisals

Conducting formal reviews of the performance of individuals on the job has long been part of corporate procedures. The annual review—often dreaded by both the supervisor and the employee—was looked upon chiefly as the determination of how much (if any) salary increase a person would receive.

However, the real reason for such reviews is to look at the performance of the employee and determine how that performance can be improved. Salary adjustment was only part of the program—but it became the part that dominated the thinking of both parties.

Today, companies are moving away from focusing on salary adjustment—often covering it in a separate procedure—and concentrate on the employee’s productivity, goals, and personal growth.

When teams replace work groups, although individual performance reviews are still important, they become part of team reviews, in which the members are assessed not only on their own performance, but on the productivity of the entire team.

Setting Standards for Individual Appraisals

All employees should know just what’s expected of them on the job. Many companies develop and incorporate performance standards at the time they create a job description. In other companies, as the job evolves, standards are established.

In routine jobs, the key factors of performance standards involve quantity (how much should be produced per hour or per day) and quality (what level of quality is acceptable). As jobs become more complex, these standards aren’t an adequate way to measure performance. Ideas and innovations that are conceived in creative jobs cannot be quantified, and quality may be difficult to measure. This situation doesn’t mean that you can’t have performance standards for these jobs, but it does require a different approach, such as the results-based evaluation system described later in this chapter.

Performance standards are usually based on the experiences of satisfactory workers who have done that type of work over a period of time. Whether the standards cover the quality or quantity of the work, or other aspects of the job, they should meet these criteria:

• They should be specific. Every person doing a job should know exactly what he or she is expected to do.
• They should be measurable. The company should have a touchstone against which performance can be measured.
• They must be attainable. Unless the standards can be met, people will consider them unfair and resist working toward them.

One way of setting standards that are understood and accepted by team members is to have them participate in setting them and encouraging them to make a practice of regularly evaluating their own performance against those standards. In this way members don’t have to wait for formal performance assessments to discover that they are not meeting standards. They see for themselves where they stand and can take corrective action immediately.

Setting Standards for Team Appraisals

Individual performance standards remain important in the team environment, but they must mesh with the standards by which the team will be measured.

Some factors that must be considered in developing team standards are

• Goals and direction the team will take are clear to all associates.
• Team members participate in setting standards.
• Periodic reviews of team performance are scheduled.
• Reviews are conducted by team leader and discussed at team meetings.

Types of Performance Assessments

Most companies conduct formal appraisals of employees on an annual basis. Annual reviews are not enough. Goals change during the year; performance varies during the year; problems that were never dreamed of when standards were set come up during the year. Performance reviews should be conducted at a minimum of four times a year. However, it is too time consuming and expensive to conduct frequent formal reviews. Informal discussions of performance should be ongoing. Semiformal brief meetings can be held with team members or the entire team several times each year.

The formal and sometimes semiformal review is standardized. A system is used so that all employees are measured in the same manner. In this section we’ll look at some of the more commonly used assessment systems.

Check the Box: The Trait System

You’ve been rated by them. You’ve probably used them to rate others. The most common evaluation system is the “trait” format, in which a series of traits are listed in the left margin, and each is measured against a scale from unsatisfactory to excellent.

This system seems on the surface to be simple to administer and easy to understand, but it’s loaded with problems. Leaders tend to fall into the following traps when rating members on a trait system:

• Central tendency. Rather than carefully evaluate each trait, it’s much easier to rate a trait as average or close to average (the central rating).
• The halo effect. Some managers believe that one trait is so impressive they rate all traits highly. Its opposite is the “pitchfork effect” (see Chapter 4).
• Personal biases. Managers are human, and humans have personal biases for and against other people. These biases can influence any type of rating, but the trait system is particularly vulnerable.
• Latest behavior. It’s easy to remember what employees have done during the past few months, but managers tend to forget what they did in the first part of a rating period.

When you rate your team members, don’t be overly influenced by their most recent behavior. Employees know that it’s rating time, and they’ll be as good as a kid just before Christmas. Keep a running log of their behavior during the entire year.

The best way to overcome deficiencies in the trait system is to replace it with a results-oriented system (described later in this chapter). However, if your company does use the trait method, here are some suggestions to help make it more equitable:

• Clarify standards. Every manager and team leader should be carefully informed about the meaning of each category and the definition of each trait. Understanding quantity and quality is relatively easy. But what is dependability? How do you measure initiative, creativity, and other intangibles? By using discussions, role plays, and case studies, you can develop standards that everyone can understand and use.
• Establish criteria for ratings. It’s easy to identify superior and unsatisfactory employees, but it’s tougher to differentiate among people in the middle three categories.
• Keep a running record of member performance throughout the year. You don’t have to record average performance, but do note anything special that each member has accomplished or failed to accomplish. Some notes on the positive side may say, for example, “Exceeded quota by 20 percent,” “Completed project two days before deadline,” or “Made a suggestion that cut by a third the time required for a job.” Notes on the negative side may say, “Had to redo report because of major errors,” or, “Was reprimanded for extending lunch hour three days this month.”
• Make an effort to be aware of your personal biases and to overcome them.

Results-Based Evaluations

Rather than rate team members on the basis of an opinion about their various traits, in the results-based system the people who do the rating focus on the attainment of specific results.

Results-based ratings can be used in any situation in which results are measurable. This system is obviously easier to use when quantifiable factors are involved (such as sales volume or production units), but it’s also useful in such intangible areas as attaining specific goals in management development, reaching personal goals, and making collaborative efforts.

In a results-based evaluation system, the people who do the evaluating don’t have to rely on their judgment of abstract traits, but instead can focus on what was expected from team members and how closely they met these expectations. The expectations are agreed upon at the beginning of a period and measured at the end of that period. At that time, new goals are developed to be measured at the end of the following period.

Here’s how this system works:

• For every job, the team leader and the associates doing the job agree on the results expected for that job. These are called key results areas (KRAs). Employees must accomplish results in these areas to meet the team’s goals.
• The team leader and the team member establish the criteria on which the team member will be measured in each of the KRAs.
• During a formal review, the results an employee attained in each of the KRAs are measured against what was expected.
• A numerical scale is used in some organizations to rate employees on how close they come to reaching their goals. In others, no grades are given. Instead, a narrative report is compiled to summarize what has been accomplished and to comment on its significance.

Some companies request that team members submit monthly progress reports compiled in the same format as the annual review. This technique enables both the team member and the leader to monitor progress. Studying the monthly reports makes the annual review easier to compile and discuss.

Although results-oriented evaluations can be more meaningful than trait systems, they’re not free of problems.

Unless the team leader and the team member take an objective view of what he or she should accomplish, unrealistic expectations may be set. The danger is that they may be set so low that employees attain them with little effort, or so high that employees have little chance of attaining them.

Not all goals are equal in importance. Consider the value of the expectation in comparison to the overall goals of the team and the company. Intangible goals are more difficult to measure. Even intangible factors, however, have tangible phases that can be identified. For example, rather than indicate that a goal is to “improve employee morale,” specify it in terms that are measurable, such as “reduce turnover by X percent” or “decrease the number of grievances by Y percent.” Rather than state a goal as “Develop a new health insurance plan,” break it into phases, such as “Complete study of proposed plans by October 31” or “Submit recommendations by December 15.”

Collaborative Evaluations

To make the results-based format even more meaningful, use the collaborative model. If performance evaluations are based on the arbitrary opinion of a supervisor, they serve only part of the real value of reviews. A results-based model provides a formal evaluation for the purpose of raises or promotions and enables you to tell employees how to improve performance, but it doesn’t involve team members in the process.

The collaborative review can do this more effectively and is particularly useful for evaluating creative jobs such as research and development or jobs in the arts. Team members and their leaders jointly determine the standards that are expected, build in the flexibility to accommodate the special circumstances under which they’re working, and agree on the criteria that will be used in evaluating the work.

The team member and team leader then complete the evaluation form. The KRAs and the “results expected” items are agreed upon in advance (usually during the preceding review). The team member and the leader independently indicate the “results achieved.”

A variation on the collaborative evaluation is having team members evaluate their own performance before meeting with their team leader. Both leader and member complete a copy of the appraisal form. At the meeting, similarities and differences in the ratings are discussed, and adjustments in the ratings resulting from the discussions are reflected in the formal evaluation that’s filed with the human resources department. In some companies, if the employee still disagrees with the evaluation after the discussion, a rebuttal may be written and filed along with the team leader’s report.

At the appraisal interview (described later in this chapter), the team leader and the team member discuss the comments on the form. During this session, the appraisal begins to move from a report card to a plan of action for growth and teamwork.

Collaborative reviews of performance have the following advantages:

• They give team members the opportunity to make a formal appraisal of their own work in a systematic manner.
• They allow for a thorough discussion between the team leader and the team member about the differences in their perceptions of both expectations and results achieved.
• They enable a team leader to see areas in which he or she may have failed in developing a team member’s potential.
• They help the team member and the team leader identify problem areas that might easily be overlooked on a day-to-day basis.
• They pinpoint areas in which employees need improvement and in which they need additional training.
• They provide an opportunity to discuss areas in which a team member can become even more valuable to his or her team.
• They provide a base upon which realistic goals for the next period can be discussed and mutually agreed upon.
• They help team members measure performance and progress against their own career goals and serve as a guide in determining the appropriate steps needed to move forward.

In-Between-Reviews Appraisals

As noted earlier, limiting reviews to once a year is not realistic. Members need more frequent feedback to keep on the cutting edge of their jobs. One solution is the mini-review—usually conducted monthly, but which could be done more frequently.

Members are asked to evaluate their progress for the past month by responding in writing to a series of questions.

At the appraisal interview the team leader and member discuss the member’s responses and develop plans to enhance the strengths, shore up the weaknesses, and set revised goals for the ensuing month.

Peer Appraisals

In the traditional organization, supervisors rate their subordinates. When teams enter the picture, the supervisor, now team leader, usually still evaluates team members, but this is supplemented by team members rating each other. Why? Ratings by several people are likely to provide more objective results. Members work closely with each other. They really know how well associates do their jobs. Because ratings are made by several people, individual biases, jealousies, and personality conflicts are neutralized.

How They Work

Peer appraisals can take as many forms as the traditional supervisor’s appraisal. They can be trait-based or results-based. They can be in numerical or narrative style. The important thing is that they be consistent and that all members be carefully trained in using the system.

At the Jumphigh Trampoline Company team ratings are conducted quarterly. Each team member completes an evaluation form for each of the associates. After the team leader reviews the forms, a meeting is held at which the evaluations are discussed. The team leader reads a summary of what was reported. By keeping the individual reports confidential—members are not told who said what about them—evaluations are more likely to be frank and honest.

At the meeting all members discuss the evaluations and suggest ways of helping each other in the areas where help is needed. The team leader will also meet on a one-to-one basis with each member to add his or her suggestions, and to deal with sensitive issues that may have come up in the reviews, but not been broadcast to the group.

In some companies, all of the original peer evaluation forms are kept on file; in others only the team manager’s compilation is retained. Peer assessments, along with other assessments, become part of the body of information on which the formal performance evaluation is based.

Pros and Cons of Peer Evaluations

As pointed out earlier, the chief advantages of peer evaluation are the neutralizing of biases by any one rater, obtaining a variety of opinions on each member’s performance, and the opportunity for the entire team to share in identifying weaknesses in the team, and developing and implementing steps to correct them.

By having several reviews of each member’s performance, the team leader can write a more objective and more comprehensive formal assessment report.

But peer evaluations have a downside. Let’s look at some of the problems:

• Some members may consider others rivals for promotion or for more interesting assignments and rate them lower than they should.
• Members may rate their friends higher than they should.
• Members may take the easy way out and rate associates right down the middle of the scale.
• Members may “trade off” assessments with others. “I’ll rate you high and you rate me high.”

Following are some suggestions on how to overcome this:

• Before each peer review period, hold a meeting to review the procedure and to reinforce the importance of providing fair, honest, and unbiased assessments.
• If possible, using numerical ratings. Require members to answer specific questions about each associate’s performance and give examples.

  For example: “When working together on a project, in what ways did the associate help move the project forward? In what ways did the associate hold up the project? In what aspects of the work did the associate excel? In what aspects of the work does the associate need to improve? Give examples of how this affected your work.”

• If a numerical system is needed, when compiling the results, if one review is significantly higher or lower than the others, delete it in making the compilation. Hold a private meeting with that member to probe the reasons for it.

Discussing Performance with Team Members

Whether the formal appraisal results from an evaluation by the team leader, a combination of ratings by peers, or a 360 degree panel, there is usually a one-to-one sit-down meeting between the team leader and the member to discuss it. In many organizations, the member is also asked to rate him or herself as a prelude to the formal appraisal interview.

Prepare for the Interview

Before sitting down with a team member to discuss a performance appraisal, study the evaluation(s). Make a list of all aspects you want to discuss, not just those that need improvement but also those in which the member did good work. Study previous appraisals, and note improvements that have been made since the preceding one. Prepare the questions you want to ask about past actions, steps to be taken for improvement, future goals, and how the team member plans to reach them.

Reflect on your experiences in dealing with this person. Have there been any special behavioral problems? Any problems that have affected her or his work? Any strong, positive assets you want to nurture? Any special points you want to discuss?

The Appraisal Interview

Make the team member feel at ease with a few minutes of small talk. Then point out the reasons for the appraisal meeting. Say something like this: “As you know, each year we review what has been accomplished during the preceding year and discuss what we can do together in the following year.”

Note the areas of the job in which team members have met standards, and particularly the areas in which they have excelled. By giving specific examples of these achievements, you let team members know that you’re aware of their positive qualities.

Encourage team members to comment. Listen attentively, and then discuss the aspects of performance or behavior that didn’t meet standards. Concentrate on the work, not on the person. Never say, “You were no good.” Say instead, “Your work didn’t meet standards.” Be specific. Give a few examples where expectations haven’t been met. This is more effective than to just say, “Your work isn’t up to snuff.” Ask what the team member plans to do to meet standards and what help you can provide.

If the member’s problems aren’t related to performance, but rather to behavior, provide examples: “During the past year, I’ve spoken to you several times about your tardiness. You’re a good worker, and your opportunities in this company would be much greater if you could only get here on time all the time.” Try to obtain a commitment and a plan of action to overcome this fault.

Encourage Discussion

Throughout the interview, encourage the team member to comment on or make suggestions about every aspect of the review. Of course, he may have excuses or alibis. Listen actively—you may learn about some factors that have inhibited optimum performance. For example, you may find out that someone has an older-model computer that has started crashing several times a day ever since the company upgraded the software. You may not have been aware that this recurring problem was affecting the member’s job performance. With this new information, you can take steps to correct the situation by budgeting for a computer upgrade. By giving the associate the opportunity to express his or her reasons or arguments, you can take steps to correct the situation.

Even if a team member’s excuses are superficial and self-serving, allowing them to be voiced clears the air. Then you both can be prepared to face real situations and come up with viable ideas.

Make Criticism Constructive

Many team leaders find it difficult to give criticism. Here are some guidelines to help deal with this sensitive area:

• Begin with a positive approach by asking the team member to assess the successes achieved and the steps taken to achieve those successes.
• Encourage him or her to talk about projects that didn’t succeed and what caused the failure.
• Ask what might have been done to avoid the mistakes.
• Contribute your suggestions about how the matter could have been handled more effectively.
• Ask what training or help you can provide.
• Agree on the steps the associate will take to ensure better performance on future assignments.

Develop an Action Plan

At the end of the interview, ask the team member to summarize the discussion. Make sure that the person fully understands the positive and negative aspects of his or her performance and behavior, plans and goals for the next review period, and any other pertinent matters. Keep a written record of these points.

Ask the member to develop an action plan to implement the changes that are to be made. This plan should be specific, listing actions in each pertinent area and timetables specifying when the plan will be started and completed. If new goals are set, list the goals and note when and how they will be achieved.

In many companies, team members who disagree with an evaluation are given the opportunity to write a rebuttal to be attached to the appraisal. When salary adjustments are based on ratings, some organizations provide a procedure for appealing a review.

End the interview on a positive note by saying, “Overall, you’ve made good progress this year. I’m confident that you’ll continue to do good work.”

In most companies the appraisal form is sent to the human resources department to be placed in the employee’s personnel file. Some companies require that a copy be sent to the next level of management—the person to whom the team leader reports.

Even if it’s not a formal practice in your company, it’s a good idea to give a copy of the appraisal to the team member. It serves as a reminder of what was discussed at the appraisal interview and can be referred to during the year. And, if it includes goals the employee and you have agreed upon for the year, the employee can reread it from time to time to keep motivated.

Ten Tips for Reviewing Performance

1. Know exactly what you want to achieve. Let your team members know what is expected of them.
2. Keep a log of each member’s performance from which to cite specific examples.
3. Discuss the written evaluation with the team member.
4. Listen to team member’s comments, then ask questions to stimulate thought.
5. Focus on the individual. Do not compare him or her with other members of the team.
6. Show that you care about the member’s performance and career.
7. Reinforce good behavior. Be specific in your criticism. Give examples from their performance record. Ask them how they can do even better. Add your own suggestions.
8. Focus on the behavior, not on the person.
9. Don’t be afraid to give honest criticism. Most team members want to know where they stand and how to improve.
10. Help team members set personal goals that are congruent with the goals of the team and the company and develop a plan of action to reach those goals.

Performance appraisal is an essential tool in team leadership. Not only does it enable the leader to keep tabs on each member’s performance, but more important, it encourages members to evaluate their own performance on an ongoing basis and take steps to work toward improvement.

The Least You Need to Know

• The chief reason for performance reviews is to determine how that performance can be improved.
• When teams replace work groups, the members are assessed not only on their own performance, but on the productivity of the entire team.
• Have team members participate in setting their standards and encourage them to evaluate their own performance against those standards.
• Annual reviews are not enough. Problems that were never dreamed of when standards were set come up during the year.
• Keep a record of specific examples of the exceptional and unsatisfactory performance and behavior of team members to support your performance evaluation.
• The team leader’s appraisal of members, when supplemented by peer appraisals, is likely to provide more objective results.
• When discussing with a member areas in which expectations haven’t been met, give specific examples. Ask what the member plans to do to meet standards and what help you can provide.
• At the end of the interview, ask the team member to summarize the discussion. Keep a written record of the points that were agreed upon.