General Forum
Discuss workforce management, performance management, retention, communication, motivation, contributing to business results and other topics.
(Please note that this forum is dedicated to workforce-management professionals only, and not for employees.)
Posted: 2005-09-21 10:16
I need some references that talk about the inappropriateness/ineffectiveness of waiting for the annual performance evaluation to address a concern with an employee. It has always been my practice to address performance problems when they arise, and to document the outcome of any significant problems during the year in the annual eval.
Instead I have a mgr who wants to wait and use the annual eval to "sock it to 'em". I believe this is unfair; the employee has no opportunity to improve before eval time, and thus is left with negative evals that could have been avoided. I've got a few articles that hint at the inappropriateness; does anyone happen to have an online reference to a text or article that clearly state this?
Thanks!!!!!
milesw
Joined: Nov 21, 2001 Posts: 207
Posted: 2005-09-21 10:43
I don't have an online reference, but here's some common sense.
If you have a puppy who piddles in the corner, do you wait eight months for its performance appraisal to whack it with a newspaper? Well, you never whack it with a newspaper, but you most certainly don't wait eight months. To modify human behavior, there needs to be immediate positive consequence for positive behavior and immediate negative consequence for negative behavior.
It's people like this who give management a bad name. Keep the employee, dump the "manager".
purpleaa
Joined: Nov 15, 2004 Posts: 50
Posted: 2005-09-21 11:58
Yeah, I know it's common sense. It is really shocking people don't see it that way.
I need some references though. I will be looking back at my old texts to see what I can come up with. Nothing like proving something that should be common sense.
milesw
Joined: Nov 21, 2001 Posts: 207
Posted: 2005-09-21 12:24
You're likely to find your best sources somewhere in the field of psychology. What you described is similiar to one example of poor parenting skills. Specifically, if you observe your kid doing something wrong and respond by saying, "Just wait til your father gets home." By the time Dad walks through the door, the kid can't remember what they're getting yelled at for. It doesn't work with kids and it won't work with adults.
The behavior you described was once called gunny sacking. I googled that and didn't come up with anything helpful.
You know, the other thing that blows my mind is why this manager would voluntarily advertise himself to be an ineffective idiot. I mean, picture it: he sits down with the employee and says, "I'd like to talk to you about something you screwed up seven months ago." Why would the employee NOT say, "Seven months ago??! And you're chewing me out now? Why didn't you come to me seven months ago when it happened?" You'd respond that way, right? Geez, just give him a big banner to hang on his door that says: "Hey, everyone! Look at me! I don't have Leadership Skill One!"
Sheesh.
RebeccaL
Joined: Mar 22, 2005 Posts: 122
Posted: 2005-09-21 15:28
AMEN Milesw!!
We write processes for our clients & always suggest that they have on-going dialogue with employees to address issues and to reinforce positive performance. This results in continuing improvement throughout the year. The real question is what are you going to do with the manager??
Rebecca
mgitner
Joined: Aug 25, 2005 Posts: 32
Posted: 2005-09-22 06:14
That's a passive-aggressive manager you got there! No one should come to a performance evaluation and get blindsided ... issues (like in any type of relationship) need to be addressed early. No one wants to be doing a sub-standard job, and most of us do really appreciate feedback on how we're doing. I'd be shocked if I learned 6 months after the fact that I was doing something incorrectly or inaccurately and no one had said anything! Coach the manager to address the issues before more develop and the situation can not be corrected, because it will only lead to turnover when you set people up to fail.
katyallenmom
Joined: Aug 29, 2005 Posts: 33
Posted: 2005-09-22 06:15
The following is an article from USA today you may find helpful.
Why employees don't do what you want?
By Andrea Kay, Gannett News Service
The path to getting something done should be simple: you tell people what you want and they do it, right? Then how come it rarely turns out that way?
Why do they argue with you, tell you that what you've asked them to do is a waste of time or that they have a better way or there's not enough time to do it? Or they simply don't do what you asked.
There are at least 16 reasons why people don't perform the way you want, according to Ferdinand Fournies, author of Why Employees Don't Do What They're Supposed to Do and What To Do About It (McGraw Hill.)
They include the fact that people sometimes don't know why they're doing something, they don't know how to do it, they think something else is more important or they anticipate a negative consequence for doing it.
Whatever the reason for non-performance, the manager controls it, Fournies said.
Yes, you heard right: if managers took appropriate action to make these 16 reasons for nonperformance go away — or prevent them from happening in the first place — you'd have perfect performance.
Take the employees who don't do what you asked them to do because they think their way is better.
In this particular case, you have loads of experience and know that the way you asked them to do this task is the best approach. Overall, you appreciate and encourage your employees to be innovative, but not in this instance. Innovation is fine, as long as it works. In this case, you know it isn't the best approach.
Say, for example, you asked Bob to complete a form after each sales call while the information is still fresh. Bob says it's more convenient to do it at the end of the day when he's not rushed.
You may interpret this behavior as a resistance to change, but it's not, according to Fournies. The employee is using logical thinking from his or her point of view. If he thinks his way is better, why do it your way?
The problem in this example: ''employees having misinformation about how successful their method is compared to your method.'' In other words, you haven't convinced them, by talking about your method's history, that your way is more effective.
So to prevent non-performance in the first place, the solution is to:
•Ask Bob if he can think of a better approach than the way you've discussed.
•If Bob offers a different way, convincingly explain why his way isn't better than your way. Offer examples based on your experience. Explain the cause-and-effect relationship between the intended actions and expected results, then compare the results between your way and his way.
If this doesn't work, ask, ''Is there anything I can do to convince you that your way is not better?'' If the answer is ''no,'' tell him the discussion is over, and the project goes forward the way you've discussed.
Don't be tempted to let someone do something wrong to prove you are right, being seduced by the idea that ''people learn by experience,'' Fournies warned. Doing things wrong can be expensive and embarrassing.
If all this seems like too much responsibility is being placed on the manager, consider this: ''The one who loses most when an employee fails is the manager; the one who gains the most when an employee performs well is the manager.''
It's the manager who must intervene to assist the employee to perform appropriately.
deltac
Joined: Jul 27, 2004 Posts: 261
Posted: 2005-09-22 06:19
As far as solid research in this area, all I found were studies that look at the accuracy of performance ratings when the feedback is delayed (less accurate). This is a critical concern because if you had to rely on this documentation, it can be argued that your practices are poor and your data is flawed. Try looking at some employment case law to see if there is a precedent.
The other research that examines time and feedbact has looked at why supervisors delay negative feedback, typically they are uncomfortable and wish to avoid the confrontation. This has been called the "mum effect." You may find some evidence there. Please let us know what you find.
deltac
Joined: Jul 27, 2004 Posts: 261
Posted: 2005-09-22 07:34
Another research avenue may be the factors that influence the perceived fairness of a feedback system. But I didn't see anything about delayed feedback there either.
By the way, I love book cited in the above post, bottom line, managers are there the serve the needs of the organization and should not let their petty egos or social anxieites get in the way of their responsibilities to improvement efforts. This is a poor practice that should not be tolerated.
Posted: 2005-09-22 14:14
The Corporate Leadership Council has many research documents in this area (performance management and employee engagement). Check out their site www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com
gteam53
Joined: Sep 23, 2005 Posts: 5
Posted: 2005-09-23 04:49
This is a great question. Your situation isn't, unfortunately, at all unusual. I've seen this many, many times.
The question is "what motivates the manager" to act in this way? Certainly, he/she knows that while "pouncing" on the employee will be impactful, it will neither be effective nor fair (if the manager fails to understand this, I would suggest more careful screening for managers). How does a supervisor delude themselves into taking this approach. What is the company doing to foster this delusion?
An article called Why Don't Supervisors Supervise at www.performtogrow.com (go to the first tab and hit articles) speaks to probably the major reason this happens and will give you an idea of how to correct it in your organization. You can find it and many, many more articles on leadership, outplacement, employee surveys, and other topical HR issues on this site.
DIDONL
Joined: Sep 23, 2005 Posts: 2
Posted: 2005-09-23 12:46
I just looked on that website and cannot find the article you referenced. Is it still there?
bondl
Joined: Oct 05, 2004 Posts: 2
Posted: 2005-09-27 03:58
Effective managers give both negative and positive feedback on an ongoing basis. They don't wait until the performance evaluation to "sock it to the employee". What is discussed in a performance evaluation should never be a surprise to the employee.
Fire the manager...or at least do some serious training.
There are lots of good resources out there including a video/DVD by Thompson on performance evaluations, The Performance Management Sourcebook, edited by Craig E. Schneier, Richard W. Beatty, and Lloyd S. Baird, a supervisory series by McGraw Hill, and many more.
The Business of Management
Workforce Management editor John Hollon analyzes and comments on business, management and the art of leading a workforce.
Workforce Washington
Washington staff writer Mark Schoeff Jr. provides an insiders insights to the workings of our nations capital from the workforce management perspective.
Global Work Watch
Staff writer Ed Frauenheim blogs about how companies worldwide marshal and manage their workers.
= Member Only
Posted: 2005-09-21 10:16 
