Michael N. Dundas

http://www.flickr.com/photos/magandafille/287193330/

I took a course on conducting effective performance evaluations yesterday that was being offered.  While I have done performance evaluations in the past, and am comfortable doing them, I find I always learn something new or someway I can improve.

There were two discussion points that surprised me. The first was the concept that a performance evaluation is completely separate from an employees career goals and aspirations.  The second was that your pay increase or financial incentives were not tied to your performance evaluation.

While both were interesting, I want to focus on the first, the separation of performance evaluation from career goals.    While I agree they are different to some extent, the positioning that they are not connected seems wrong.  On the template we use for performance evaluations there is an entire section on objectives.  These objectives are suppose to be measurable in some way and ideally if you are handling the performance evaluation correctly, the measurement is agreed upon by both the manager and the employee.  If your performance evaluation has nothing to do with your career, then these objectives are just objectives the company wants you to accomplish and have nothing to do with your own aspirations or career goals.  I think this devalues the performance evaluation for the employee as it only benefits the employer or is more sided to achieving the goals of the  company with no consideration of the employees aspirations or goals.

For myself, I feel I have a relationship with the company and that relationship is dynamic, constantly changing and adjusting to the environment, goals and situations of the company, goals and situations of the individual.  Like all relationships, there has to be some mutual agreed upon benefit for all parties for the relationship to work.  Over the last two years, I have specifically managed my own objectives to improve my career.  If someone is looking to improve their career in someway, get a promotion, obtain a opportunity in a new area, it makes sense to align your performance objectives with that goal.  When you apply for a new opportunity, at some point in an interview, they will probably ask you what you have done that you feel makes you a good candidate for the position you are applying for.  They will be selecting you partially based on this criteria.  I know people in my company and outside my company that have used their performance evaluation to do exactly this and it was effective.

While I logically understand how your evaluation of the past year or 6 months has nothing to do with your career goals or aspirations, I find it difficult to accept that setting measurable objectives for the next 6 months to a year has nothing to do with an employees career goals.  If that is true, then I guess companies don’t consider your past performance evaluations when you apply for a new position, as they are not connected?

I am no expert in this field of human resources, but I need to research more on this concept.  I want to understand if this is limited to my company, certain types of companies, or is some general human resources concept I have just never been aware of.  Regardless, if this separation is true, then I think companies have an obligation to have an avenue for career development that is as accountable and measurable in the same manner as performance evaluations are.  I do not understand the complete separation of performance evaluations and career goals.  To me, they are related.  When I have conducted performance reviews, the career goals of the employee usually come up.  It is natural and makes complete sense to me they would come up.  As an effective manager I feel you have to address this if you hope to have a good relationship with your employees.

I took a bit of time this busy weekend to listen to an interview with Michael Hyatt, CEO of Thomas Nelson.  I personally try to limit the number of blogs I read and I am constantly culling my list.  His blog is the best leadership blog of the ones I follow.   I find him to be an excellent source of advice on leadership and management.  His posts are reasonable and just makes sense to me.  I pay attention to him because amongst other things what he says and his reasoning behind what he says is very similar to leaders I have worked for in the past.  These are people I respect and who have helped me become a better leader and person.  My leadership skills have improved immensely over the last years because of these individuals.  But I am not great at it, not even close to his level.  As with all things, there is always room for improvement and change for the better.

I found the entire interview with Michael interesting and useful.  Some key statements that stood out for me were:

I think I am pretty successful at delegation.  Really figure out what I am good at, what I am not good at, where do I add the most value, where don’t I add value and stay out of the stuff where I don’t add value.  And that is tough I think particularly as a young leader because you want to look like you are good at everything and you are nervous about your weaknesses showing.  But the truth is I am not good at everything, I am good at a few things.

But there is absolutely nothing in my view more annoying than sitting with a person you are trying to have a conversation with while they keep checking their email or their Twitter account.  And honestly in meetings like that I just stop.

Idea that the content has to be vetted to the delivery format particularly the format that we’ve grown very accustomed to … I love books, I love the smell of them, I love the tactile feel of them.  You know I like candles too.  I love burning candles, I love the smell of them, I love the ambiance they create, but I light my home with electricity.

One of the things you have to do as a leader is create an environment that is safe for creativity and the only way you do that is create an environment where it is safe for dissent.  People got to feel like they can disagree with a leader, they can have their own ideas, that they can fight and collaborate and struggle and wrestle.  Because it is out of that process that you are going to get the best ideas.  I think as a leader you have to invite people into that process.

For anyone interested with 30 minutes to spare, the interview can be found here.

Good article forwarded to me by a colleague. It was written by Harvey Schachter. It highlights some quick ways to differentiate between between good and bad managers. The article is here, but I’m copying it here in case it ‘disappears’ for some reason in the future.

———————————————-

Some managers are competent while others are not. Here are 10 ways that serial entrepreneur Margaret Heffernan says she spots the incompetents. If a manager displays any one of these behaviours, she writes on FastCompany.com, it should ring a warning bell and more than two means you should sound the alarm:

Bias against actions

There are always many reasons not to take a decision. Real leaders display a constant bias for action while the incompetents wait for more information, more options and more opinions.

Secrecy

Beware of a manager who always fights against telling staff about what’s happening, worrying it will distract or confuse employees. Very few matters in business must remain confidential and good managers can identify those easily.

Oversensitivity

Managers must see a problem, address it head on, and move on. If the manager is afraid to raise issues with employees because it might hurt their feelings, problems won’t be resolved.

Love of procedure

Managers who cling to the rulebook have forgotten that rules and processes are meant to expedite business not ritualize it. “Love of procedure often masks a fatal inability to prioritize – a tendency to polish the silver while the house is burning,” she says.

Preference for weak candidates

When a choice has to be made between candidates, an incompetent manager will often avoid super-competent recruits in favour of junior or weaker alternatives. Good managers know you must hire people smarter than yourself but weak managers can feel threatened by such folk.

Focus on small tasks

Unable to handle their actual job, they get lost in preparing perfect spreadsheets and making sure data is completely up-to-date.

Allergy to deadlines

A deadline is a commitment, but some managers cannot set and stick to deadlines or honour commitments.

Inability to hire former employees

If you hire a new manager who doesn’t attract new recruits from the previous company, it’s a sign that manager hasn’t mentored others or won their respect.

Addiction to consultants

A good way to put off making decisions is to hire consultants, and so often this is a route a weak manager will take. When the consultant’s report comes in, it also can chew up time.

Long hours

Bad managers work long hours. “They think this is a brand of heroism but it is probably the single biggest hallmark of incompetence. To work effectively, you must prioritize and you must pace yourself. The manager who boasts of late nights and no time off cannot manage himself so you’d better not let him manage anyone else,” she writes.