Author Archives: Tom Foster

About Tom Foster

Tom Foster spends most of his time talking with managers and business owners. The conversations are about business lives and personal lives, goals, objectives and measuring performance. In short, transforming groups of people into teams working together. Sometimes we make great strides understanding this management stuff, other times it’s measured in very short inches. But in all of this conversation, there are things that we learn. This blog is that part of the conversation I can share. Often, the names are changed to protect the guilty, but this is real life inside of real companies.

Nothing Really Changes

Leave a reply

Patricia wasn’t happy with her company’s Performance Appraisal system. She was clear about the reasons why.

  • One size appraisal forms don’t fit. They are often irrelevant for the role under review.
  • The suggested rating criteria are general, vague and can be interpreted in different ways. The discussion is centered around what the rating criteria means or doesn’t mean, instead of what happened.
  • The Performance Appraisal system is centered around an annual discussion, designed to cover events ranging across an entire year, without any supporting documentation other than a person’s memory.
  • The Performance Appraisal is a backward looking process.
  • Most actions that come from the Performance Appraisal discussion are corrective in nature. Fixing weaknesses instead of building on strengths.
  • After the Performance Appraisal discussion, nothing really changes. Any impact, good or bad, usually fades within a few days. Maybe after a few minutes.

I congratulated her analysis. “Job well done. Most people won’t sit and write these things down. With this analysis, we can make some headway.”

Patricia smiled. “Thank you.”

I smiled. “So, now the work begins. Your challenge will be to take each of these reasons and create something new. Your new Performance Management system has to address each of these issues, especially the last one. I want to see something that truly creates meaningful change.”

Patricia had some work ahead of her.

Bored With This One

1 Reply

“I talked with some of the other managers,” Patricia explained. “No one likes our Performance Appraisal system.”

I nodded. “Tell me more.”

“Here’s the thing. Sure, we get together informally on a daily basis and talk about what is going on. But to sit down formally once a year to evaluate someone isn’t very productive. Even if I could remember something that happened earlier in the year, what’s the point. It’s water under the bridge. And most of the scoring questions are about things that I don’t think are relevant for most of our positions.”

“Then, why did your company select the format from this website?” I asked.

Patricia smiled. “Because no one wanted to take the time to really think this thing through. No one wanted to volunteer to create something more effective. Over the years, we have had six or seven different evaluation systems. And every couple of years, somebody says they are bored with this one or that one and we change. No one has ever liked any system we have ever had.”

Things Don’t Fit In the Box

2 Replies

I was asked to stop by and visit Patricia. Apparently, she had fallen behind in her managerial responsibilities to conduct performance reviews with her team members.

“Why the long face?” I asked.

“You were sent by the enemy,” she joked.

“Yes, and the enemy wants to know why you are resisting the performance appraisals for your team members.”

Patricia paused and slid a form across her desk. “They got this off of some website. We’re supposed to use it as the basis for these performance appraisals. Seems like a big waste of time.”

“How so?”

“Three reasons,” she replied.

  • The form doesn’t specifically apply to the task assignments my team works on.
  • It asks me to rate things on a scale from (1-5). But it leaves me in the dark as to what a (2) means. Or a (4).
  • I have to write down some comment on any rating that is not a (3). It’s easier just to rate everything a (3), but what’s the point?
  • I know if I show this to my team member, it’s just going to start an argument.
  • The instructions tell me to think about situations from the entire past year and describe them in this little box. Things don’t fit in the box.

“That’s five things,” I observed.

“Sorry, I just got carried away.”

Calibration Time

Leave a reply

From yesterday’s comments, some great questions.

Question:
I’ve been thinking about performance appraisals and Time Span lately because many of our front line workers are Stratum I. We have a weekly scorecard and we measure and reward every week, which fits their time span.

Our healthcare company is licensed and, as a stipulation of our license, we’re required to “review” each employee annually. Since I’ve been introduced to Time Span, I can see how these annual reviews are a waste of time for Strata I and II. So, what’s the most meaningful way to comply with our license without wasting everyone’s time?

Response:
First, if it is a requirement of your license, you are not wasting anyone’s time. If you lose your license for non-compliance, then you will be out of business. So take this very seriously. The paperwork should be completed and conform with accepted guidelines.

Now, let’s talk about making Performance Feedback meaningful. You have correctly identified that goals should be reviewed concurrently as they are achieved, meaning, if a team member is working on weekly goals, then they should be reviewed on a weekly basis. It shouldn’t take a lot of time, but a few minutes each week to acknowledge a “job well done,” will pay large dividends to the organization.

So, what would be important to talk about at least once a year? I call it calibration time. Elliott Jaques called it the “Personal Effectiveness Appraisal.” And it doesn’t have to happen ONLY once a year. Calibration should occur at least once a year or any other time the manager sees an observable change in capability (usually positive).

Here are the questions.

  • Is the team member functioning satisfactorily, given the Time Span task assignments in the role?
  • If yes, could this team member function effectively in task assignments with a longer Time Span?
  • If no, could this team member function effectively in task assignments with a shorter Time Span?

This calibration discussion has three participants, the team member, the manager and the manager-once-removed. This discussion rarely takes more than ten minutes.

The brilliance of Elliott’s discovery is that we can use the Time Span of a goal to calibrate and match task assignments to the capability of a team member. This matching is designed to keep people engaged in task assignments that are both well-suited and challenging. What happens to job satisfaction when people are challenged to their maximum level of capability? Not beyond, not below, but right at their maximum?

Because people grow and mature, this calibration should occur at least once a year or any time a manager notices a change in capability.

It’s That Time of Year

1 Reply

Does your company do Annual Performance Appraisals? What is the purpose of those Performance Appraisals?

Most HR people would propose that they protect the company in the event of a termination. But here is a question to ponder. If your company is involved in litigation over a termination, which side of the table is the first to introduce your Performance Appraisals into evidence?

Gary Markle, in his book Catalytic Coaching, takes most Performance Appraisal systems to the mat. For all that we would want them to do, most often, Performance Appraisals, have the opposite effect. We think they protect us, they are used against us.

In two weeks, Working Leadership Online will tackle this subject. So I am curious, what is your experience with Performance Appraisals? Are they helpful? What is wrong with them?

The Telephone Screen

1 Reply

How prepared are you to engage in the process of hiring talent?

Preparation saves time in the long run. If you post a position and receive 200 resumes in response, how can you sift through to the right candidates? The only way to efficiently and effectively do this, is through preparation. And in my years, this preparation is only haphazardly done.

Yesterday’s comments drew fire related to Stupid Hiring Questions. Both responses centered around efficiencies in the process, to quickly eliminate unqualified candidates in the interview.

By the time I get to the face-to-face interview, I should only be dealing with the highest probability candidates. But getting to the highest probability candidates still requires hard work.

  • Resume Review
  • Telephone Screening
  • Telephone Interview

Most managers miss the telephone screen. The telephone screen is based around five central questions related to the critical role requirements. It is based on an agreement with the candidate that this phone call has a short time commitment of five minutes or less to answer only a few basic questions. In most cases the telephone screen will last three minutes or less. It is highly efficient in qualifying candidates, allowing us to spend more time with only the best candidates.

A Counterproductive Gift

2 Replies

If you are interviewing candidates for a position, buyer beware. Here is what you are up against.

While you and your management team are flipping a coin to see who is going to handle the interview, your candidate is in a seminar with a professional coach with the sole purpose to beat you. The stakes are high. The candidate has nothing to lose, everything to gain. And they WILL beat you. This comment posted by a professional coach to demonstrate how the candidate takes advantage of STUPID INTERVIEW QUESTIONS by unprepared managers.

Janet Palmer – Communication Excellence Institute comments, “From the interviewee’s perspective, ‘Tell me about yourself’ is a great question! It allows the candidate to talk about his or her background and capabilities, and how they link to the job description and needs of the hiring organization. For over 20 years, our firm has successfully coached high-level candidates to take full advantage of the wonderful opening question–“Tell me about yourself” or “Tell us why you are interested in this position,” which are essentially the same question–and to respond clearly and directly to the match between the candidate and the position for 3 to 4 minutes, the time during which serious first impressions are made. Our logic (proven by positive results) is that if the candidate can dominate the first critical 3.5 minutes of the interview (as suggested by research), then he or she has the greatest ability to make a favorable impression that is likely to last. I frankly hope interviewers never stop asking that opening question! It’s a gift to the smart candidate.”

And yes, one of the most STUPID INTERVIEW QUESTIONS is “Tell me about yourself.” But not as STUPID as “Tell me where you would like to be in five years.”

Both of these questions allow the candidate to talk in non-specific, inflated, exaggerated drivel. Which is exactly what they are coached to do. One of the Big Five Mistakes made by managers is –

  • The manager loses control of the interview.

Most managers lose control because they are not prepared to ask the real questions that would be helpful in making a sound decision. And if the manager is not prepared, the candidate is trained to take over. Janet is right. It is a GIFT to the candidate.

Unproductive Nonsense

2 Replies

The third Big Mistake managers make in the hiring process.

  • Manager allows bias and stereotypes to influence the process.

Why?

It’s not that bias and stereotypes are bad. Bias and stereotypes are normal. We all have them. The problem, in the hiring process, is that we make selection decisions based on this bias.

Look, we can’t help having those impressions. They exist. And in the mind of the interviewer, they are formed and connected within seconds of the candidate entering the room. But that’s not the problem either.

The problem is that we allow those bias to make our decisions for us.

The problem, for most managers, is they arrive in the interview without preparation, perhaps 3-4 written questions to ask the candidate. From there, the interview crumbles into unproductive nonsense. Silly hypothetical questions are followed by a plant tour. In the end, the manager has insufficient data to make a decision, so the only criteria left are those impressions formed in the first few seconds of the interview. Back to bias and stereotypes.

Solid preparation is the antidote.

Hiring Threat

Leave a reply

Some of you may have missed this comment posted last week by Michael Cardus on the five Big Mistakes in hiring.

Comment
One area that is not mentioned is the manager allowing fear and concern for their own position to sneak in. I was talking with a friend of mine who is a program director. She said “I am interviewing people for entry level positions who are more qualified than me.”

Listening to her say this, I could hear the concern for her own job. The thought of hiring someone smarter, I may lose my job to the person I hired, or worse, that person, I hired, may get a promotion and become MY BOSS! YIKES.

As the job market is pushing over-qualified people to find work at a rate that they would not have accepted 3 years ago, managers have to work on their self-esteem to learn how to get their egos out of the way.

Response
This is a solid fear that runs through the mind of the manager. It creates a bias in the mind of the manager and there is no escaping it. Working on self-esteem doesn’t help and it is impossible to get your ego out of the way. This is self-preservation and skews the hiring decision.

Elliott Jaques observed this in his research with organizations. Those organizations that handled this, created a role for the Manager Once Removed (the Hiring Manager’s Manager). He describes this role specifically, as a member of the hiring team, to bring perspective and to qualify the candidate pool. Because of this fear, the Hiring Manager might hire too low in capability. The role of the Manager Once Removed (MOR) is to make sure all considered candidates have the Time Span capability for what is required in the role.

This is the current subject area in our Working Leadership series. We have closed our scholarships, but you can still register for this single session – Time Span and Hiring Talent.

Misintrepreting Responses

1 Reply

Second on the list of the top five mistakes managers make in the hiring process:

  • Manager misinterprets responses in the interview.

Why does this happen? One simple reason. Managers misinterpret responses because they try to interpret responses. Stop trying and you will improve your batting average.

In our Time Span Workshops, I ask how many have taken a psychology course. Lots of hands get raised. Then I ask who has degrees in psychology, very few hands go up. Advanced degrees? No hands go up.

“So, no one in this room is certified by the state to practice psychotherapy or psychoanalysis?” All eyes avoid the question.

Managers misinterpret responses during the selection interview, because they try to play amateur psychologist. Don’t play amateur psychologist. You will improve your decisions in hiring talent.