Pay and Play LO4993

Rol Fessenden (76234.3636@compuserve.com)
20 Jan 96 00:38:11 EST

Replying to LO4956 --

Roxanne says, "I suspect you and I (and Virginia who joined the discussion
yesterday) all agree [about] an organizational review of employee's
performance. My point is that this where the _focus_ should be rather
than on an annual individual performance review. When the team meets to
discuss its progress toward a project goal or the status of the production
schedule, this is the best time and best context to commend those who met
their deadlines, etc. or review why others didn't accomplish their
individual assignments and decide what can be done to prevent this from
happening tomorrow. Was John given a role that is he is not adequately
trained for? Did Susan fall behind because of illness and fail to ask for
help? Did Colleen go above and beyond so that the order got shipped on
time? I believe that current feedback given in this context is so much
more valuable than stored feedback saved for the next schedule review,
that we should work at learning to give feedback well in present time and
forget about the annual employee performance review. This is also the
best time and place to address personal responsibility. The manager was
irresponsible in assigning John to a role he was untrained for. Susan was
irresponsible for not asking for help but she shouln't be blamed for her
illness. Colleen demonstrated exceptional responsibility."

I agree that we are agreed. I guess I have had a lot to say because
a)this is what a manager's work is, b) there is some unclear thinking
about how management work gets done, and c) my own thoughts are always in
need of further clarification.

I agree that weekly meetings are the only sensible way (often if not
weekly) to give and receive feedback. The positive feedback is very
important, and there is probably nothing more important than analysis of
why the success occurred. Did we finally understand and deal with the
systemic issues? Did we finally find a way to work effectively with a
difficult personality? Did we find a mising person who was a critical
participant? Did we manage personalities, did we motivate, did we focus,
did we manage? A broad-ranging discussion of the success will be more
help than any 'management' to the listener who is struggling with
something that is still ambiguous.

Generally those who did not reach their individual assignments have
systemic reasons for it. The weekly meeting is the time to struggle to
define the problem and identify experiments that might help clarify.

I would steer clear of the word 'irresponsible' as I find it too
judgemental. The manager may have overestimated John's capacities, or
misunderstood the nature of the task, or have deliberately given a
difficult task to John as a stretching process. The manager's manager
needs to be involved meaningfully here to ensure the manager is getting
what she needs. Susan should learn from this experience to let people
know about extraordinary circumstances, but she probably did not realize
that before. If this has happened two or three times before, then there
may be a need for a quiet chat about what is going on.

These are minor points, and all part of the learning that must occur.

--
 Rol Fessenden
 LL Bean
 76234.3636@compuserve.com