Canadian HR Reporter

CANADIAN HR REPORTER August 7, 2017 12 EXECUTIVE SERIES Finally, performance management is about managing performance The recent hand-wringing about perfor- mance management is a result of the con- fused lumping together of what are actu- ally two distinct processes universal to all managers of people. If we pick apart this jumble, we'll fi nd clarity to argue apples with apples, and to fi nd solutions. To begin with, managing perfor- mance — a manager ensuring her direct report is performing as ef- fectively as expected — is made up of an iterative and ongoing series of specifi c accountabilities. ese start with providing role clarity and pivot to clear task as- signment, ongoing monitoring and effectiveness assessment, followed typically by feedback, coaching or task adjustment, or atypically by role redefinition, deselection or dismissal. What is implied is real-time engagement from a manager capable of candid and eff ective conversations. Managing performance is being jumbled together with a personal eff ectiveness review — a manager determining the extent to which her direct report is performing relative to expectation over time, then plotting that relative perfor- mance within the band of com- plexity the role encompasses. The intent here is for the manager to use her judgment in aggregating the tasks con- ducted by her direct reports over a specifi ed time — typically a year — and coming to a subjective con- clusion about each direct report's eff ectiveness relative to expecta- tions (and not to each other). e relative position within that band of complexity, where the direct report falls, provides the diff eren- tiation employees seek, along with the grounds for relative reward — so high performers are called out as such. Why these two processes, despite having diff erent intents, are being jumbled together is easy to an- swer: Employers do not value real- time performance management and so do not reward for it. So managers do not do it. Employers have voted with their paycheques. Interestingly, the annual per- sonal effectiveness review — a quasi-legal and defi nitely fi nancial event — is a process that can be less easily avoided. As a result, the two processes, looking similar but with diff erent intents, are slammed together by HR-process fi at, with the predictable outcome that nei- ther are done extensively or well. e solution to managing per- formance is fi rstly for organiza- tions to actually demonstrate they value the ongoing management of performance — rewarding man- agers for doing so, and doing so ef- fectively, meaning they make the process an accountability, part of a manager's paycheque. Secondly, like all other manage- ment of performance, supervising managers must hold their direct- report managers to account for managing performance. As described above, this ac- countability includes clear task assignment, ongoing monitoring and personal effectiveness as- sessment, followed typically by performance feedback, coaching or task adjustment. Mercer's approach, ably pre- sented by consultant Illana Hech- ter, essentially comes to the same conclusion. "Focusing" looks much like role clarity. "Realloca- tion of time" is the shift to thor- oughly articulating role clarity and the real-time management of performance. Accountability is the prerequisite for "rewarding strong leaders." Hechter's illuminating insight " e system becomes the facili- tator of the outcome, rather than the owner" encapsulates this ap- proach. It prioritizes the intent that performance management is about a manager's eff ort to man- age eff ectiveness, and not about an HR-imposed tick box. Michael Clark is director of business development at Forrest & Company Limited. Forrest is an organizational transformation fi rm with 30 years ex- perience in developing organizational and leadership capability. The recent hand-wringing about perfor- mance management is a result of the con- fused lumping together of what are actu- ally two distinct processes universal to all managers of people. If we pick apart this jumble, we'll fi nd clarity to argue apples Michael Clark ORgaNiZaTiONal EFFeCTiVeNeSS Supervising managers must hold their direct-report managers to account. RECRUITING FINANCIAL PROFESSIONALS? O er positions to over 200,000 Members Highly targeted advertising Immediate matching resume database access FOR MORE INFORMATION, cpacanada.ca/CPASource TELEPHONE•416 204 3284•EMAIL•TGardiner@cpacanada.ca 14-126a_EN_CPAsource_fullpagead_9.625x7.indd 1 1/5/2016 3:24:31 PM slightly tweaked fi ve-point rank- ing system, believing employ- ees wished to know where they stood, and have growth areas identifi ed. "We want to ensure that we're creating that diff erentiation," said Carradice. "It needs to be sim- plistic and clear. Leaders and em- ployees do not want to be bogged down with a complicated process that they don't understand. It can't be something that employers and leaders dread." Now, the success of the system changeover and culture shift will depend on change management efforts, she said. "Performance management has somewhat of a negative connotation in most or- ganizations. We know this is criti- cal to our ongoing success." e system change was organic in nature in that interviews were conducted with managers at vari- ous levels to determine preferred design, said Hechter. While the re- sult wasn't a major administrative change, it did incorporate prefer- ences such as simplicity, consis- tency, coaching and scripting. " e hope is that, over time, these behaviours will just start being part of the culture," she said. Ranking tweaked PERFORMANCE < pg. 10

• Cover