For the better...? (The Process of Performance Appraisal)

Recently, I have been engaged in discussion with my feiend and colleague Dale Weeks, about best practices in performance appraisal. The reasons commonly given by organizations for doing this, are well known. We want to assess worker strengths and weaknesses; we want to help make good plans for individual development; we want to reward superior performers; we want to document bad performers in case we have to take punitive action.

The debate of course, is whether the traditional systems of appraisal do more harm than good. Do the bad truly get punished? Do those getting rewards really deserve them? Are such rewards more divise then motivating? Do supervisors really have tough conversations to help the weak and encourage the strong?

My own experience over more than 30 years inside several organizations, is that these traditional systems do in fact do more harm than good. In this, I tend to agree with Dr. W. Edwards Deming, and those who followed him (Peter Scholtes; the Coens and Jenkins book on abolishing appraisals etc.).

In my recent correspondence with Dale, I noted my six years in a good sized and diverse public organization. I was responsible for training all supervisors about appraisals every year, and for coaching them through the annual process. Almost all of them hated having to do this. But worse than the work of generating the appraisals, were the consequences of what they did. Without overt conspiring, there were the common issues of upward "grade creep" and "range compression" that often afflict traditional appraisal systems. Fewer than 2% of the supervisors actually used the annual assessment meeting to shape development plans for subordinates. to make themselves look better, supervisors tended to increase ratings for their group, so they would not suffer coercive comparisons to their own colleagues. Oops.

There are better ways.

Coens and Jenkins may have been the first to use real data to refute and address the traditional reasons for appraisals. Moreover, they offer alternatives to address each reason/excuse. there is a recent book by Samuel Culbert with a similar title. Hopefully it will reach more people, and continue to influence thought and action in a more helpful way.

New Post to Baldrige Blog on Classroom Learning Improvement

Here is the post I placed on the Blogrige site, in response to other comments about improving classroom learning in schools:


http://nist.typepad.com/baldrige_program/

I draw on several sources, primarily the work of Seymour Sarason, and Ron Heifetz. Neither talks overtly about complexity science, but both clearly understand the nature of complex human dynamics.

Enjoy!

Naked Emperors: Last Desperate Acts of those to Whom Change WILL Come..

In an exchange on Twitter last night (and you can find me there as @complexified), I was discussing the failures of "command and control" management (I can not call it "leadership") in organizations. My conversation was with Valdis Krebs, the well-known pioneer in social network analysis. Valdis referred to such behaviors as "ossification," and noted that in time (sooner rather than later, we think), such management will shatter and collapse.

This follows on a recent IBM report, in which many CEOs indicate their concern for being able to cope with increasing complexity in the world.

Totally understandable. For too long, too many have acted in what I'd call the "as if..." mode of problem-solving. Such managers have failed to note and understand (much less, apply) the ideas of thinkers/teachers such as Harvard's Ron Heifetz, or the UK's David Snowden. Ron has written and taught for years about the distinction between what he calls "technical" and "adaptive" problems in organizations. Dave Snowden has crafted his "Cynefin" model which posits a dynamic set of related problem domains: simple; complicated; complex; and chaotic. In each domain, Dave offers an optimal leadership strategy for assessing and responding to the challenge at hand.

I see the Cynefin framework as a further logical expansion of Heifetz' ideas. The Simple and Complicated relate to "technical" problems - those that can generally be solved with the right mix of knowledge and resources. The Complex and Chaotic domains seem to relate to Heifetz' "adaptive" challenges- those that require people to change what they think, believe, and do.

Over the years, I have observed managers treating complex/adaptive problems AS IF they were complicated/technical. I believe there is always some level of the former in the latter (see the recent Toyota problems, for example).

Most recently, I have been involved in fascinating but often disturbing conflicts within a global non-profit organization. The leaders are the "Naked Emperors" to whom I have referred on Twitter and on this blog. They seek to exercise strict command and control over vast and various networks of volunteer member-leaders. Well, oops. Treating people AS IF they were machines on a factory floor just does not work. Treating people AS IF you and not they have all the answers to making things work, isn't happening either.

Today's leaders need to admit that command & control will not succeed in a complex organizational and world environment. Instead, they need to develop adaptive capacities, that enhance communication, engagement, trust, and satisfaction. In this way, organizations will become more agile, more innovative, and better able to respond to changes in their environment (Darwin's actual quote). Those who cling to the old C&C ways, will find their options and success diminishing, and in time, their authority and prerogative will blow away like so much dust in the wind.

The Old Ball Game... and the pursuit of excellence

This morning I saw a post on the Baldrige Award blog site, about the missed umpire call in last week's baseball game. The post was by Harry Hertz, Director of the Baldrige Award, and Harry analyzes the mistake in the context of Baldrige categories (what else?!).

As a fan of both baseball and process improvement, I offered my own blog reply. You can read ths comments at:

http://nist.typepad.com/baldrige_program/2010/06/what-would-baldrige-say-about-the-detroit-perfect-game.html#comments

The Naked Emperor: An Epic Battle of Organizational Change

For more than ten years I have been on the Executive Board of a Division in a global non-profit organization. It has been my pleasure and privilege to serve on this particular Board. It is not the first, or the only Executive board on which I've served. During the past decade, I have made many fantastic friends, and been fortunate to have traveled throughout the US to conferences and events in behalf of this organization. Since this is a member/volunteer-led organization, people like me give a lot of our own time, and some money, to make this thing work. I am proud of the record that my division colleagues and I have achieved over the years.

But...

Over the past year or so, the leadership of this organization has fallen into the hands of a few former friends and colleagues, who have been greatly changed by their ascent to power. For little more than their own glory (since they are not earning any money running this organization- more about the money later on), they have moved to a rigid command and control model, and away from the model of transparency and collaboration that this particular organization literally espouses.

If you remember the old fairy tale about The Emperor's new Clothes, you recall that everyone but the Emperor knew his "clothes so fine only the Emperor can see them" were a sham, and the Emperor strutted around naked. That appears to be the case with my former friend and colleague. He is essentially the COO of this organization, which has seen its member base and revenue streams steadily dwindling in recent years.

A few people, myself included, have been telling the leadership for more than five years, that they are in an "innovator's dilemma." As the book of that name describes, many organizations get stuck when the conditions that once enabled their success, have moved on. As noted author and consultant Marshall Goldsmith wrote, "what got you here, won't get you there."

This is a story of global proportions, affecting tens of thousands of people. Yet it is a very personal story, in which I, and a handful of leaders who disagree with the 2-3 top chiefs, get branded as "boat-rockers," "trouble-makers," and of course "a very small but vocal bunch of outliers."

Well, if you are running a Toyota factory, you'd want every Camry coming off the line to be perfect - to exactly conform to the designer's specifications. Unwanted variations would usually be defects, and management would move swiftly to find the root cause, and eliminate it.

But we humans tend to work differently than a Toyota factory. We're complex, not just complicated. We can deviate from a plan in an instant, if some other path suddenly makes more sense to us. We can process an amazing amount of information in an instant, and reach conclusions just as fast. We're not always right, but we can learn to learn; and learn to adapt to the changes around us.

At least SOME of us can adapt and change. Charles Darwin did not really write "survival of the fittest." What he wrote was that those best able to adapt to changes in their environment would be best suited to survive. My former friends/colleagues who "drank the kool-aid of power" must have had the high-octane punch. The model of governance that they have imposed bears more resemblance to Napoleon's army, than it does to the modern management teachings of even mainstream thinkers like Peter Drucker, Jim Collins, or Henry Mintzberg. Forget about the "Thriving on Chaos" ideas of Tom Peters (and note that Tom published that stuff many years ago). The current trends, with such unique leaders as Yvonne Chouinard of Patagonia, and Ricardo Semler of Semco - "dangerous radicals" in the eyes of The Naked Emperor. Of course the Naked Emperor admits he has not read anything by Margaret Wheatley, Ralph Stacey, Peter Block, etc. Neither does the Naked Emperor use the new social media such as blogs, Facebook or Twitter. In fact, without ever having seen or used it, The Naked Emperor proclaimed Twitter "not suitable for serious business conversations." Oops. Someone forgot to tell His Nakedness that all of his key divisions and many local area leaders and volunteers, were actively, happily, having great conversations on Twitter every day.

There is more to this story, and I will tell more as circumstances permit. It is an unfolding saga.

Peace and fulfillment.

Speaking of youtube. . . do see the Du-Tels

One more for you in this remarkable season. Check out the video by Gary Lucas and Peter Stampfel - the Du-Tels, on youtube. It is about Obama, and may be the funniest smartest piece you'll see this election season.

Mr. Tom Waits

If you did not catch it, Tom Waits did one of his very rare, and typically short tours this Summer. While I love Tom's music, and would have enjoyed seeing him, the only tickets I could get would have been for a show in Alabama. Not possible for me.

Whether you are a fan or not, you should definitely watch Tom's press conference video about the tour, which you can find easily on youtube.

Complexly yours, cmplxty