You need that “someone special” for a job that just came open. The job you need to fill requires the successful applicant to have good interpersonal skills, good problem solving skills and to have the ability to work alone in the bottom of a cold, dark, damp hole.
So you post an ad in your local “help wanted” blog. Part of the ad states, “This job requires good interpersonal skills, good problem solving skills and the ability to work alone in the bottom of a cold, dark, damp hole.” Then you start to interview applicants. You ask each applicant, “What are your job strengths?” Would you believe it? ALL 37 of the people you interview answer, “I have good interpersonal skills, good problem solving skills and I love to work alone in the bottom of a cold, dark, damp hole.” Are you lucky to find 37 “special” people or did you “tell” them how to answer in advance? Bet you know the answer now!
Never describe the specific attributes the job requires to the applicant until you have the information you require to make a quality evaluation. If the person you are interviewing truly wants the job, he or she will present themselves in the very best light relative to the job. For you to make an accurate assessment of the person relative to the job you need to know what they offer, not just what they want you to know.
If the interviewee has no clue that the job requires good interpersonal skills, good problem solving skills and the ability to work alone in the bottom of a cold, dark, damp hole and you ask, “What are your job strengths?” And then follow it up with, “What type of workspace suits you best?” You will know right away you got the “right someone special” if you get the composite answer, “I have good interpersonal skills, good problem solving skills and I love to work alone in the bottom of a cold, dark, damp hole!”
In the next few posts we’ll look at questions you can ask to get good information relative to the specific skills a job requires.
Tip of the day: Good information relative to how compatible an applicant is with the job requirements will help ensure you put the right person in the right job.
Over the last few weeks we’ve looked at Performance Systems. When we do Preference System Analysis (PSA), we start with a “quick peek” at the Performer. In this “quick peek” we ask:
- Does the Performer have the skill and knowledge to achieve the desired Accomplishment on time, right, first time, every time?
- Does the Performer have the physical ability to achieve the desired Accomplishment?
If the answer to 1 & 2 above is “yes”, then we immediately stop looking at the Performer and start to look at the system in which the Performer is working. We’ve developed the list of things to check (below) when someone’s (who knows how to achieve the desired Accomplishment and is physically able to do so) performance is in the crapper:
- Make sure the Opportunity to Perform includes a clear Signal to Perform and all the tools, resources and job aids the Performer needs to achieve the desired Accomplishment.
- Make sure the Performer is receiving the FeedBack he or she needs to recognize good output and to, where possible, self correct of target performance.
- Make sure there are no negative Consequences deterring the desired Accomplishment or positive Consequences supporting the un-desired Accomplishment.
- Make sure the Measurement System “ties the Performance System together”.
If 1, 2, 3 & 4 above are in order, then, and only then do we go back and look at the Performer. Aside from a “proper” Opportunity to Perform, there are seven major elements in PSA that relate to the Performer:
So, what’s the difference between a Psychological Barrier and an Emotional Barrier? An Emotional Barrier is generally sponsored by an “event” and is generally relatively short lived. For example, one of your workers finds out on Friday right after work that their favorite cousin was hit by a car and killed. The funeral is on Sunday. They return to work Monday. They don’t tell a single coworker what happened. Is it possible that their work will be a little off-target? Over time this person, assuming that they are “normal”, will put this in their past and move on.
Psychological Barriers tend to be more permanent. That is they don’t generally just “go away”.
Yet, if we make sure the Performer has the skill and knowledge to do the job, that is, knows when, why and how to do the job and can recognize if the job is being accomplished properly or improperly, and is physically able to do the job, then research[1] shows that over 95% of performance breakdowns do not relate to the Performer but rather to a breakdown somewhere in the System in which the performer is working!
Tip of the series: Every Performance System is “perfectly engineered” to get the results it’s getting. Therefore, when someone’s performance is in the crapper, suspect the system, not the performer!
[1] See Human Competence, Thomas H. Gilbert, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-023217-2
All other things being equal, the behavior you measure is the behavior you get. A well thought out, properly designed Measurement System is a key to an efficient, effective Performance System.
It is Measurement that “ties the Performance System together”. To some, this is not intuitively obvious. So, let me explain. Part of the Opportunity to Perform is (See Part 2 of this series for details) a “clear definition of what the desired Accomplishment is”. Part of that “clear definition” is a Measurement system.
To develop a Measurement System we
- Determine the area of measurement which defines the desired parameters of performance for each accomplishment. The areas of measurement are typically defined as quality, quantity, rate, completeness, timeliness, accuracy and/or cost. The area of measurement can be looked upon as a scale.
- Identify a specific measure for each area of measurement, the specific indicators or ratios that you will use to determine how well the accomplishment is being performed. The specific measure can be looked upon as the part of the scale that is used.
- Identify specific standards or levels of performance for each measure. The standard can be looked upon as the desired point on the scale. It is the target, often with an acceptable range of performance, for which we are shooting.
Where possible the Performer should receive the output of the Measurement system as FeedBack in real time.
A superior Measurement system lets the Performer know, in real time, how well the Accomplishment is being achieved and give the Performer the information he or she needs to get the Accomplishment back on target should it “wander off”. By being part of the Opportunity to Perform and by providing real time FeedBack, the Measurement System “ties the Performance System together”.
Let’s add one more thing to our list of things to check the next time someone’s performance is in the crapper:
- Confirm that he or she has the skill & knowledge and tools & resources to do the job on time, right, first time, every time.
- Make sure the Opportunity to Perform supports the desired Accomplishment.
- Make sure the Performer is receiving the FeedBack he or she needs to recognize good output and to, where possible, self correct of target performance.
- Make sure there are no negative Consequences deterring the desired Accomplishment or positive Consequences supporting the un-desired Accomplishment.
- Make sure the Measurement System “ties the Performance System together”.
If 1, 2, 3 4 & 5 above are not in order, chances are the performer will not be achieving the desired Accomplishment! Again, more often you need to “fix” the Performance System, not the performer.
Tip of the day: We end this post where we started – All other things being equal, the behavior you measure is the behavior you get.
Right now, if you get up and walk out of the room you’re in and (MAGIC KICKS IN) and turn right, you take one step and you’re in your personal paradise! Right now, if you get up and walk out of the room you’re in and (MAGIC KICKS IN) and turn left, you take one step and an 800 pound mountain gorilla drops from the sky, sucker punches you and kicks you down the hall! Now. Here’s the question. Which way would you turn? Left or right? My guess is that you’d turn right, unless, that is; you have some whips, chains and leathers hidden in the back of your closet!
“What’s the point”, you ask. In general, people tend to go towards those things that “feel good”, and avoid those things that hurt.
One of our customers is in a “service” industry. Their reps are paid by the job, not by the hour. When the rep is done with a service call, he or she must fill out a short form. Towards the bottom of the form is a box. The rep can either put a check in that box or not. Given the nature of the service calls, that box legitimately should be checked over 80% of the time. In reality it is checked less that 10% of the time. Why you ask? If the rep puts a check in that box, he or she must fill out a 4 page report that requires a model and serial number from a ton of equipment. Many of those numbers are hard to get to and even harder to read. Filling out that 4 pager always takes more than a half hour. If the rep checked that box every time he or she should have, they’d get at least 2 fewer service calls done in a day, thus significantly reducing their take home pay. In addition, there is absolutely no benefit to the rep for checking that box. Now, if you were one of those reps, would you check that box every time the circumstances tell you it’s the “right thing to do”? Be honest! Good, you’re telling the truth when you say, “No!”
The 800 pound mountain gorilla and that teeny, weenie little check box have something in common. They are, to most people, both a negative Consequence. In Performance System Analysis we acknowledge that ever thing a Performer does has Consequences to the Performer. In general, people tend to go towards positive Consequences, those things that “feel good” and avoid negative Consequences, those things that hurt. As a general rule, Consequences tend drive behavior. Last week’s we said, “FeedBack tends to sustain behavior.” Both FeedBack and Consequences have a major impact on performance.
Let’s add one more thing to our list of things to check the next time someone’s performance is in the crapper:
- Confirm that he or she has the skill & knowledge and tools & resources to do the job on time, right, first time, every time.
- Make sure the Opportunity to Perform supports the desired Accomplishment.
- Make sure the Performer is receiving the FeedBack he or she needs to recognize good output and to, where possible, self correct of target performance.
- Make sure there are no negative Consequences deterring the desired Accomplishment or positive Consequences supporting the un-desired Accomplishment.
If 1, 2, 3 & 4 above are not in order; chances are the performer will not be achieving the desired Accomplishment!
Tip of the day: More often than not, you need to “fix” the Performance System, not the performer.
You’re the “good” employee. Your boss asks you for a report. You jump right on it. Takes you 50 hours of hard work but you get ‘er done! You walk into your boss’s office. The boss is at his desk reading the latest copy of Business Week. The boss doesn’t look up, so you put the report on the desk where you know the boss can see it…no reaction from the boss. You nudge the report a little closer to the boss…no reaction. You know the boss is alive ‘cause you can see his eyes move as he continues reading. Another nudge on the report…this time it actually touches the copy of Business Week…no reaction at all from the boss. So, you turn around and leave.
Now, here’s the question: Did you receive FeedBack from the boss? In the context of Performance System Analysis (PSA) you absolutely did. Why you ask? Because, in the context of PSA, FeedBack is defined as “information you receive relative to your behavior”. The fact that the boss did not react in any way to you completing the report is information.
From a PSA point-of-view, what the boss did was put you in control of the FeedBack. Based upon the scenario above, you’d provide FeedBack like, “What kind of a crummy boss did I get. Asks me for a report he obviously doesn’t want or need!” Or you might provide the following FeedBack, “May I’m a jerk. I did all that work for nothing!”
Again, from a PSA point-of view, do you think it is a “good thing” for someone to get either of those FeedBack clips above? Obviously not! So, the moral of the story: If you do not control the FeedBack your people get, either they will or some “other force” will. It is in your best interest to provide FeedBack which is Clear, Constructive, Correct, Current, Concise and Caring.
The list of things to check the next time someone’s performance is in the crapper gets longer:
- Confirm that he or she has the skill & knowledge and tools & resources to do the job on time, right, first time, every time.
- Make sure the Opportunity to Perform supports the desired Accomplishment.
- Make sure the Performer is receiving the FeedBack he or she needs to recognize good output and to, where possible, self correct of target performance.
If 1, 2, & 3 above are not in order, chances are the performer will not be achieving the desired Accomplishment! If 1, 2, & 3 above are in order, there are still a few “things” about the Performance System to check before we look at the performer. We’ll start looking at them next time.
This week’s tip of the day is a pearl of wisdom: “FeedBack tends to sustain behavior.”
So far we’ve looked at the Opportunity to Perform and Road Blocks. These are the “up-front” parts of Performance System Analysis (PSA). They are the parts of the Performance System which need to be in order BEFORE the Performer does anything.
This time we’ll overview the rest of PSA. Then, in future posts, we’ll look at the additional components of PSA one by one.
Let’s start with our definition of the Performance System. It is the system in which the Performer (either a single person or a group of people with a common goal) operates. The components are:
Performer, the individual or group whose performance is being analyzed.
Accomplishment, the output of the Performer’s efforts, or what’s “left behind” when the Performer is “done”. (If the Performer doesn’t do anything upon receiving the Signal to Perform, then, what’s left behind may be “nothing”)
Opportunity to Perform, as we previously said is the job, its setting, required resources, the physical environment, the work flow, a clear signal to perform and the “lack” of Road Blocks.
Consequences, what the Performer experience as a result of their behavior.
FeedBack, the information the Performer receives relative to their behavior. From the PSA point-of-view, there is no such thing as “no FeedBack”. We’ll look at that in detail when we discuss FeedBack.
With the above in mind, the Performer is the “key” to a Performance System. Yet, if we make sure the Performer has the skill and knowledge to do the job, that is, knows when, why and how to do the job and can recognize if the job is being accomplished properly or improperly, and is physically able to do the job, then research[1] shows that over 95% of performance breakdowns do not relate to the Performer but rather to a breakdown somewhere in the System in which the performer is working!
“Whoa”, you say, “cut me a break! 95% seems awfully high!” “Well”, I say back, “Do you believe that, all other things being equal, most people would rather do a good job than a bad job?” I pause a minute for you to think. “Yup” is the only answer. “All other things being equal”, I continue, “Do you believe that most people would rather do something than do nothing? By the way, sitting on the porch sipping a cold one listening to tunes is not nothing. Nothing is being deprived of all stimuli.” Again, I pause a minute for you to think. Again, “Yup” is the only answer. Well, with those 2 “Yups”, you have just confirmed that over 95% of performance breakdowns do not relate to the Performer but rather to a breakdown somewhere in the System in which the performer is working!
Tip of the day: The next time someone’s performance is in the crapper:
1) Confirm that he or she has the skill & knowledge and tools & resources to do the job on time, right, first time, every time.
2) Then, if they do, look at the system in which they are working, NOT at them!
[1] See Human Competence, Thomas H. Gilbert, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-023217-2
The first real, paying job I ever had was working at a service station on Saturday mornings. They were open Monday through Friday fixing cars. On Saturdays they were open from 8:00 AM ‘till 2:00 PM for gas only. I lived in New Jersey so there was no self service pumping of gas. My job was to pump gas for customers and to find all the tools the mechanics used during the week, clean them up and put them back where they belonged. Some weeks I honestly thought the mechanics took as many tools out of the tool boxes as they could, got them as full of grease and grime as they could and then hid them from me…but that’s another story.
After I had worked there for about 6 months, I showed up at work at about 7:45 and my boss, Howard, was there waiting for me. As I walked up to him he said in a loud voice, “George, you have a bad attitude!” That took me totally by surprise. I asked, “What do you mean, a bad attitude?” Howard said, “I got complaints that you won’t come out and pump gas!”
Total disconnect! The only thing I liked about the job was pumping gas! Howard was actually a good guy. Didn’t take us long to figure out what was really happening. When I was in the back cleaning tools, and when the air compressor was running, if a customer ran over the hose on the tarmac that rang the bell in the office telling me they were there, I couldn’t hear it. I just didn’t know they were there.
The above, in Performance System Analysis terms is a Road Block. A Road Block is any condition that makes it impossible or unduly difficult for the Performer to achieve the desired Accomplishment on time, right, first time, every time. For a Performance System to operate effectively Road Blocks must either be eliminated or made manageable. Road Blocks include, but are not limited to:
- Anything that makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the Performer to recognize the Opportunity to Perform.
- Lack of tools, resources or job aids.
- A missing or poorly defined desired Accomplishment.
- Conflicting signals. For example, being scheduled into 2 different meetings, in 2 different places at the same time. It is impossible for anyone to be in 2 different places at the same time.
- An inaccurate or misleading measurement system.
- And many more.
As we said last time “It is the Opportunity to Perform that defines the Accomplishment. So, next time someone is doing something other than what you want, check out the Opportunity to Perform…maybe it is driving what you see!”
Or, there may be a Road Block preventing the performer from doing the job on time, right, first time, every time, if at all!
Tip of the day: Until you “manage Road Blocks away” don’t expect anyone to achieve the desired Accomplishment. Road Blocks make “on time, right, first time, every time” a pipe dream.
As we said last time, “… So, at a minimum, before you put someone in a job, especially a new one, make sure they know, without a doubt, what ‘success’ looks like!” Knowing what success looks like is part of, in Performance System Analysis terms, the Opportunity to Perform.
The Opportunity to Perform defines the job, its setting, required resources, physical environment and workflow. For any Performance System to operate effectively the Opportunity to Perform must provide:
- A Clear Signal that lets the Performer know it is time for action.
- Clear performance expectations and a clear definition of what the desired output of the job should be, or in Performance System Analysis terms, what the Accomplishment should be.
- All the resource, tools and job aids the Performer requires to do the job on time, right, first time.
- Clear Standards that are easily understood by the Performer.
- Measures that enable the Performer to determine how well the standards are being met.
It is the Opportunity to Perform that defines the Accomplishment. It can be the Accomplishment you want or it can be the Accomplishment you don’t want.
Tip of the day: The next time someone is doing something other than what you want, check out the Opportunity to Perform…maybe it is driving what you see!
Yeah! Right! The lazy bums that I work with are in a “perfectly engineered” Performance System? If that’s true, I’d sure hate to see a lousy Performance System!! If that was your reaction, you’re exactly where I was first time I heard, “Every Performance System is ‘perfectly engineered’ to get the result it’s getting!” But, I’ve learned, sadly, just how true that statement is.
One major reason it’s true deals with the fact
Continue reading »
Last week we wrapped-up our look at the steps in Performance Coaching. And now for the first time all the steps in Performance Coaching all in one place.
Now, do you think that these steps are so good that you’ll breeze through ‘em lickity-split first time and every time? Use ‘em once and that recalcitrant employee becomes the star performer? Maybe, in the perfect world.
To varying degrees you can expect some resistance from most employees to a change in behavior. Why? People resist change. In addition, the notion of behavior change can create Disconfirming Information. Also, keep in mind that you can expect a little minor resistance in Performance FeedBack session whereas you should expect significant, persistent, long-term resistance in a Performance Compliance session. That leaves to the inevitable conclusion that Performance Accountability is somewhere in-between.
So, let’s take a quick look at the types of Resistance a supervisor may encounter.
- Trying to change the agenda of the discussion
- Bringing in information about other performers
- Unwillingness to acknowledge the topic of the discussion
- Disagreement about the facts
- Hostility about being singled out
- Resistance to the notion of doing things differently
- Unwillingness to identify what he or she could do differently
- Failing to commit to changed behavior
Let’s look at the things the supervisor can do to overcome resistance. One of the most common things an employee will do in a performance improvement discussion is to try to change the subject to something other than his or her performance. This is a very common tactic an employee is likely to use; therefore, the supervisor must be constantly on guard and may have to restate the agenda many times during the meeting in order to keep things on track. The supervisor’s job is to stick to the agenda.
If the employee does this, the supervisor should not interrupt, but let the employee finish, and then do one of two things. Say “That’s a topic we can discuss later. Right now, let’s discuss (restate the topic of the discussion).” The other thing the supervisor can do is to go back to the point in the discussion where he or she was when the employee tried to change the agenda and pick up from there.
Think before you answer questions is sage advice. Another very common tactic an employee may use is to ask the supervisor questions. If the supervisor is not careful, the employee can gain control of the discussion by asking questions.
If the question the employee asks is to clarify information, then it is appropriate for the supervisor to answer, because the whole thrust of a performance improvement discussion is based on information.
If, however, the question is not for clarification, the supervisor should avoid answering it, as it may give control of the discussion to the employee. The best way to avoid this trap is to ask a question back to the employee to re-establish your control of the discussion.
Another way an employee can resistance is to bring up as many topics for discussion as possible. If the supervisor interrupts an employee to respond, it legitimizes the topic in that the supervisor has responded to it. As long as the supervisor continues to interrupt the employee, the employee can continue to bring up additional topics and thus keep control of the conversation.
A supervisor can avoid this by listen intently to what the employee says, without giving any non-verbal signals as to how the supervisor is reacting to the employee’s statement. An employee will seldom talk more than thirty seconds to a minute if there is not some type of response from the supervisor. By not interrupting and by giving no non-verbals, the supervisor is, in effect, not responding in any way to the employee. By silently and intently listening, the supervisor is showing interest without showing a response. When the employee has stopped talking, the supervisor can then affirm control of the discussion by leading it in the direction the supervisor wants, as opposed to the direction the employee is trying to establish.
In addition, an employee can resist by not answering questions. If this happens, use silence; that is, look expectantly at the employee and do not say anything for ten to fifteen seconds. If the employee has not responded, restate the question and use a longer period of silence.
The use of silence can be a very effective tool to maintain control of a performance improvement discussion. As silence is “uncomfortable”, there is a tendency for either the supervisor or the employee to break the silence quickly. By avoiding being the one to break the silence, the supervisor is clearly putting the responsibility for the response on the employee.
Tip for Performance Coaching in general: If you want your employees to be successful, then maintain control of performance improvement discussions.
