For decades managers and individual contributors have complained the traditional means of conducting performance management was at best a necessary evil, and at worst, a dreaded, demotivating experience. The feedback received was too often perceived as half-hearted or about things that no longer had an impact on the individual’s future success. This traditional approach to performance management consisted of goal-setting, inconsistent and infrequent performance feedback and culminated in a formal, disciplined performance evaluation. While it was indented to improve employee engagement and business performance, in the end, it did neither.

The traditional structured performance evaluation process had to come to an end. With the advent of social media, crowdsourcing, and other forms of immediate communications, there needed to be a recreation of the performance process. The new generation of performance reviews had to have a new look. In an article in 1996, we envisioned a process of continuous dialogue that was helping employees to understand what is required to improve performance to meet ever-changing in evolving business objectives courteously. That this interaction would be in the moment and that performance management would, eventually, not be necessary.

Why Change Performance Evaluations?

During focus groups with clients about their existing process of performance reviews, we heard the following questions What would happen if employees shared their goals? What would happen if there were dialogues between manager and direct report? Is it not possible for the manager first to just ask questions and then really listen to understand the employee’s perspective? What would happen if direct reports initiated the dialogue, seeking assistance, not only from their manager but also from peers? What if employees and managers could have honest transparency communications about both individual and business performance towards the defined objectives? What if there were more frequent and timely dialogues for understanding, focusing on the ability to improve performance? What if the year-end form is only one-page, two at the most?

The most important discovery was the realization that employees knew they needed to change behaviours. The employees would welcome opportunities for development if the dialogue focused on the future and stopped catching them doing something wrong, they had no time to correct.

The outcome of the employee input for the new process of managing performance was creating what we call “dialogues for accountability.” The focus is to make the dialogues a forward-facing, impactful experience. Historically, performance management has been a lagging indicator that had minimal impact on the organization’s ability to meet its targets. By taking a positive forward, focused perspective, the employee sees possibilities for success by improving in ways that benefit themselves and the organization.

The Evolution of Our Performance Improvement Process

As a result, we created a process that broke the old paradigm. We created a more flexible goals setting process, as company demands changed the goals also were able to change, The new design requires regular, timely feedback, as least every three months, when needed more frequently. The direct report owned the commitments and was responsible and accountable for initiating dialogues with not only their manager but also peers, to help find ways of improving performance. Employees knew the goals of those with whom they interacted, not only those on their team. Employees can ask for and give feedback to assist others in achieving their goals.

By having the support to be successful people, are better positioned, to help the company accomplish the business strategy, were now more confident in the work they were doing had a purpose.

360˚ Feedback Was a Gift, Not a Moment of Tension

We position the usage of multi-source feedback as a method of focusing the individual on their opportunities. What were the behaviours they needed to accomplish their current goals? Based on years of research and experience with 360˚ feedback, we realized that the power of feedback was what people did with it. It is counterproductive to have managers, even human resources, see the report. That would lead to feedback providers feeling they could not give anonymous and confidential answers intended to improve a person’s understanding of how others perceive them.

The important thing was the feedback focus on the behaviours needed for success, not a lengthy questionnaire covering things not relevant to the work and the company culture. The feedback instrument had to be specific to the values and role behaviours. It is crucial for individuals to ‘wrestle’ with the perceptions of others. To understand which of their actions had an impact on others and, in turn, their performance. They had to not only develop an action plan but also to share that plan with their direct reports and peers, along with sharing it with their boss.

In the end, the multi-source feedback process was, as Robert Burns said; As a result, “a gift to see how others see me.” It was a way of an employee to take control of their behaviours and change other people’s perceptions of them.

Employee Performance Development Leads to Organizational Performance Development

Our Performance Development process engages employees to focus on the actions that will enable them to meet their upcoming commitments.

• Ensure Executive Ownership: The CEO and team have to have ownership of this process and use it. They have to serve as role models, publicly supporting the system. Supporting the method includes providing, preferably live, introductions at the start of the training program. The leaders have to respond promptly and positively to feedback and explain why they are taking ownership of the new process. Role modelling means holding dialogues for accountability with their direct reports and open to requests for feedback meetings from peers and direct reports. They need to demonstrate their commitment by role moulding the process. The CEO has to hold team members accountable and responsible for also living the process.
• Goal Setting: This process begins with the identification of their specific needs, their alignment with the culture of the organization, and their understanding of their unique contribution to achieving the strategic business plan.
• Ongoing Dialogues for Improvement: By defining their alignment and contribution at the start of the process, you provide your employees with the capability to hold meaningful dialogues focused on achieving the desired expected business results. These sessions are not only with their direct manager but with others that can assist in their performance development. This process of helping one another enhances employee understanding of how performance is the mutual responsibility of a team. It also illustrates how it is the direct report who will ultimately decide the outcome of the process by the actions they choose to take.
• Feedforward Opportunities: There need to be ways of managers providing both private and public coaching focused on the concept of feedforward. The key is knowing, before giving the feedforward, if the individual wants such moments in private or public.
• Scheduled Meetings: There is at least one documented dialogue every three months to understand what is happening and how progress is progressing towards the attainment of commitments. As a result, employees know how they are currently performing while also learning how they can continuously improve.
• Year-End: This final meeting of the year is a very brief summary of what has occurred and the opportunity to align for the coming year’s commitments.

​The Program Training

We have learned from many discussions with organizations that have implemented this or similar programs training has to be in person. Having managers introduced to this process, without having them experience the process, does not lead to widespread successful implementation. Ideally, the implementation process requires managers first to have a session focusing on an overview of the process, how to set team and individual commitments that enable employees to have a ‘line of sight’ to the individual’s contribution to the team, business unit and organization’s success. This session also introduces the concepts of dialogues for accountability, preparing managers for holding a constructive and mutual understanding of where people are at and how to get the employee to where the employee needs to be successful.

About three months after that first session, just before the initial three-month check-in, a second training on how to conduct the dialogue for commitment. This session focuses on the dialogue process and provides the manager with opportunities to anticipate their meetings with individual direct reports.

A final session is held approximately two-months before the end of the first year’s implementation to refocus and address any issues and celebrate successes.

We have also discovered that individual contributors must be introduced to this new process. This introduction is a means to help them understand why the changes are being made and how the new method is not about their failures but their successes. The session gives them an understanding it is their right to initiated dialogue for success not only with their manager but also their team members.