Performance Management Conversations

Add a Comment

Comment by Frank Maputla Sepeng on February 6, 2012 at 14:42

Hi Alan,

I believe that performance management should start with senior managers of very organisation. Failure to be implemented correctly, it creates problems such as identification of correct performance gaps. Proper management of performance management leads to improved communications between the manager and the managed. However manay organisations treat performance management as a once off event, yet it must be constantly monitored and feed back be provided by the manager.  It needs commitment of both the manager and the managed, however these days it is not the case managers fear to take decisions and manage performance fairly and objectively so.  Performance management should not be punititive rather corrective in nature however managers use performance management as punititive tool, hence employees as well do not see the need of performance management.  Organisations also believe that the remedy to poor performance is training and yet there might be number contributing factors to non performance such as lack of resources, high standard set, systems, employee wrongly placed, personal problems etc,

Comment by Nompumelelo Penny on February 3, 2012 at 11:19

Ihave seen in my work environment employees are now viewing performance mangement in very negative way. it has fail to serve it purpose which I thinkis to motivate people, training and development purposen and also assist the organisation to meet it objectives.  i think managers need to be trained so that they can understand the important of conducting performance management.

Comment by Alan Hill on February 3, 2012 at 10:22

I think there have been a lot of very valid comments. Des, I agree with you that the first step is to understand what is required and then to communicate performance standards and requirements. Performance objectives over and above the minimum standards can be negotiated - but the employee needs to understand the "how much, of what , by when". I think even if this is done, failure to adequately monitor and coach for performace remains a problem. Relying on an annual  performace appraisal is competely inadequate. My belief is that there should be no surprises at the annual performance appraisal. Surely management is an ongoing activity of - wait for it - Planning, Organising, Leading and Controling. However, having said all that, I still think many manager do not have the face to face skills to have the "difficult conversations". They have never been taught the basic skills of focusing on the problem - not the person, striving (even in difficult conversations) to maintain or enhance the self-esteem of the individual, focusing on what is measurable - not on emotive issues (like "your lousy attitide"), setting follow-ups at every counselling session - and actually follow up. When I chair poor performance hearings (the final one in anticipation of dismissal), I often find that the history of poor performance is well documented - however, the evidence for systematic coaching for improved performance is, in many instances, competely absent.

Contributor Comment by Des Squire on February 3, 2012 at 6:55

Although many of the comments are valid i stand by my comment - the problem is twofold.

One - the performance standard must be established and agreed with the employee and the manager must enforce and manage the employee related to the standard.

Two - if ongoing performance counselling does not happen then the employees are only advised of performance problems when it is too late. This normally occurs at the time of the performance appraisal or when there is a need for a disciplinary hearing. This I felt was Alans point???

In many instances managers have no idea how to establish and agree on standards because they do not understand what it is the employee is supposed to be doing and take no time to find out. 

We can try all the training on communication, TA, people management skills and so on but nothing will have any impact until both the the employee and the manager know and understand what is expected. 

How much? of what? by when? - then tell me how i am doing. The horse still comes before the cart.    

Comment by Joe van Wyk on February 2, 2012 at 22:22

Alan, you've hit the nail on the head...especially the "angry outburst" bit. So many managers forget that they should firstly be leaders, and then the management part will follow naturally. It is a fact, albeit a sad one, that so many of our South African economic units are being headed by small-minded egotistic people who think the title "manager" bestows upon them a divine right to talk down on the poor underlings. Decency and mutual respect are without doubt the bedrock of effective performance conversations. 

Comment by Pieter on February 2, 2012 at 12:16

I know my comments are late - out of office - I agree with you and Marguirite and Amos - TA is a wonderful tool and I still use it in identifying issues. Amos stating that it starts at the interview stage - I tend to agree - for if that was sorted initially it is usual that the rest follows (with exeptions of course).  But alas all goes back to basics such as education and upbringing and with that work ethic and all the other issues regularly covered by this forum.

Comment by Moira De Roche on February 2, 2012 at 11:00

I think that Managers often hide behind the tools they use - like Balanced Scorecards, thinking they have some magic that negates the need for good communication skills.

Comment by Amos Mthembu on February 2, 2012 at 10:44

Hi All,
after reading all the comments i now realise that this is a common problem and error all over. like Des and Sylvia said, the lack of perfomance standard establishment is a problem. but again when during interviews when people are promoted or hired, this should be determined (Peoples skills and leadership abilities). this will immediately identify the gap at hand. mostly companies only evaluate process knowledge and experience. but when the paw paw hits the fan? the gap emerges.

Comment by KAREN SOLOMON on February 2, 2012 at 9:54

Hi All

I have also witnessed this situation all too often, with untrained specialists being promoted into line management roles, without the concomitant training.
Added to that, the tendency to confuse assertiveness with aggression, and a critical omission wrt Onboarding. Very few companies do it effectively, and most don't do it at all, somehow assuming someone will do it or that the new incumbent will 'show initiative' and 'manage their careers' sans the basics.

Another challenge is the very subjective nature of some performance indicators. It appears that targeted indicators eg. sales lead to less controversy than other roles, and for the most part the manaqer has the final say ... I would challenge unions and HR practitioners to review this on regular basis, as it does seem that the Commissioner's office is the place where these irregularities come to light. Performance Development remains an ethical and legal issue for us as people's livelihoods depend thereupon.

Comment by Alan Hill on February 2, 2012 at 9:49

Thanks for all the great comments. I was particularly interested in Marguerite's comments about using transactional analysis. I used to train managers in TA skills when I first started working in the corporate world (I think Noah was still around). I find it intersting how some of the great concepts are making a come back as it were. I recently provided some performace management input for a company and found myself refering to some of the tried and tested concepts/authors ( which were apparently new to them) such as Hershy and Blanchards original works on Situational Leadership, Mager and Pipe on Analysing Performance Problems, TA etc. I suppose 20 odd years experience hasn't been a total waste of time!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page