Employee reviews are often hated by the managers who give them and the employees who receive them. I do not believe in employee reviews. Moreover, they often appear to be a colossal waste of time and other resources. Better form is to kindly offer on-the-spot correction, privately but at or near the occurrence of a problem, and move on.

Employee reviews, from extended observations, appear to be a travesty, a tragedy, and a painful experience for all concerned. Typically, personnel reviews are ignored during most of the year. Suddenly, as a time for review comes near, a flurry of activity may occur to collect information and prepare for an employee review.

I have observed employee reviews taking two very drastically different and equally useless turns. In the first case, if a manager is thinking all year long of the year-end employee reviews, then he or she may develop an attitude of creating a “Pearl Harbor” file on each of the people in the organization. Thus, he or she must keep a dossier on each employee, tracking all of the good and bad they do. Of course, the bad will predominate, because it will easily gain management attention first. Thus, management develops a poison attitude of spying on the troops. This is absolutely unacceptable thinking.

By contrast, good work often results in a smooth project, having no crisis to draw attention. Who complains about good work? In this second case, if one does not spend all year thinking about the annual review, whether the annual review comes in June or December, then incidents tend to only be accumulated just before review time. Accordingly, observations of activities, actions, decisions, and errors just prior to the time of review are collected. With the reality of our limitations of memory, those observations and their significance are blown completely out of proportion. Forgotten or dwarfed is the performance during the remainder of the year. Thus, advice, counsel, evaluations, and the like may be highly distorted toward recent, minor incidents not productive issues.

I have, however, learned about a company that provides employee evaluation software surfaces at ninedecisions.com. Their system is universal, provides 360 degree feedback throughout an organization, puts management and employees on the same footing, and takes so little time that it can be exercised one or several times a year. Outside a tool such as theirs, I cannot recommend in good conscience that any other organization conduct anything like conventional employee reviews.

A successful manager I knew during my years in industry said to ask “why?” at least five times. As he put it, one needed to ask “why” in response to any complaint, suggestion, or plan in order to ferret out the needs and justification. Many people are not focused on communication, nor on deep thought as to why they are doing what they are doing. By asking “Why?” a manager begins to peel the onion as to the origins of both problems and solutions. Upon obtaining one explanation, he would ask “Why?” again. This uncovers some of the basis for the issues underlying the initial exposition of the problem.

Asking “Why?” again in response to each level of explanation eventually will uncover more of the organizational, resource, personnel, customer, and physical realities driving processes and their solutions. Asking “Why?” teaches the questioning manager much about his organization. It also develops in the person reporting a depth of understanding and a depth of communication with management.

Try it. Don’t go with the superficial answer. Understand its underpinnings until you have arrived at bedrock.

Never bring the boss a problem. Bring a solution. Years ago I worked on a crew stacking hay in the meadows of Wyoming’s cattle country. I recall a particular problem that occurred. The problem was within the purview and promises of the owner and foreman of the ranch where we were contracted to put up the hay. I suggested to my boss that we should go back to the management or ownership of the ranch and request that they correct the improper condition and circumstance as agreed. My boss replied “He didn’t hire us to bring him problems. He hired us to solve them.” Accordingly, we did whatever it took to solve the problem, even though it improperly cost us and delayed us. The owner of the ranch had his problem solved. He was happy to pay for the overall solution as contracted. He never new about the problem his foreman had caused.

In industry I found the same situation time and again. I found it best to go to management requesting only authorization to proceed with my plan. When I could present to management a plan of what to do, explain what problems that action was going to solve, and then request permission, authorization, or the resources to implement the plan, I had an easy sale to make. If one keeps showing up with problems, asking management what to do, it cuts in half the value delivered by the worker. One is expected to engage the brain as well as the brawn in bringing to pass the objectives of any organization.

The principle of presidency developed as a philosophy after years of observation and reflection. Initially my interest was piqued by a writer who contrasted the power of Lorne Greene in “Bonanza”, flanked by his two sons, Hoss and Little Joe, compared with Barbara Stanwyk in her role with her family in “The Big Valley.” I am not sure today that the particular author was necessarily correct in his observations. However, I was to learn by paying attention to such matters, that the principle of presidency seems to rest on a leader subdividing all tasks in his or her organization and assigning them to two lieutenants or counselors.

A major philosophical shift must occur to be successful as a president. One must dismiss any guilt for handing off all responsibilities to the henchmen, lieutenants, or counselors. A president is thus free to first secure resources needed by the lieutenants. For example, in an industrial organization, schedule, time, money, tooling, and the like often lie outside the authority of a lieutenant to command. Accordingly, it is the job of the manager or president of that organization to fight the dragons, whether political or otherwise, in order to bring down the resources of other management to be used by the lieutenants. This is no small task, and is well worthy of the efforts of a manager (president).

Meanwhile, the president secondly acts as a sounding board for the lieutenants. Being able to brainstorm, pierce plans full of holes, help guide the lieutenants to plug up those holes with good solutions, and otherwise strengthen the plan of the lieutenant is a valuable role not to be ignored in favor of performing “one’s fair share” of the execution.

Finally, hauling water is beneath the dignity of no one. A manager acting in a presidential capacity in his organization, when he has time or need, is not above hauling water for the troops. Digging in and helping out with execution of any task, whether it is writing, engineering, copying, stapling, or any other seemingly menial task, is not below a president. When it comes time to ship a proposal out the door or ship a product off the dock, a president who has fulfilled all the higher needs, is still an intelligent, motivated set of hands to help get the job wrapped up shipped. Asking “What can I do to help?” and then taking direction from the lieutenant is completely appropriate at such times.

Distilled to its essence, management may not have an essence. I recall attending a management workshop years ago in one of America’s largest multinational corporations. A management chart, strictly in terms of functions, was displayed. The discussion facilitator asked for opinions on which of the various items in the diagram were the functions of management. Various forms of planning, execution, evaluation, and the like were illustrated in various boxes connected by lines. After several people had opined on which of the boxes they considered to represent the purview of management, the discussion leader suggested management is not the boxes. It is the lines.

I have often reflected on this very pointed lesson. If management is burdened with the individual tasks, when can it find time to coordinate and communicate between tasks. It has been my experience that one can delegate almost every task of management to somebody within an organization. I found I had all I could do in communicating, coordinating, and supporting, particularly by counseling, trouble shooting, listening, and brain storming with my engineers, technicians, and shop personnel.

Marketing and sales people may require even more communication, because the link between activity and results is sometimes much more tenuous, even nebulous, in a large, industrial organization. Typically, in a smaller organization, the performance of a sales and marketing organization is directly tracked by weekly and monthly sales figures. In big-ticket items, such as major contracts and development projects, such a correspondence is often impossible to correlate day to day.

One of the most enabling expressions I learned in industry was “If you were king, what would you do?” After all the discussions, debate, piercing and plugging all the holes in an idea or project, one must move forward.

I once had a young engineer in his early 20’s whom I appointed to be responsible for a 2 million dollar portion of an 8 million dollar contract. After discussing his plan with him I simply asked, in view of our lengthy discussion of plans, weaknesses, backfill of weaknesses, and so forth, “if you were king, what would you do?” In response he respectfully laid out a revised plan. I asked him, “can you get there from here?” He assured me that he could meet the time and budget constraints. Therefore, I instructed him to go ahead. From that time on he was following a picture in his own mind that he had established, and that I had authorized.

I have never been one to micromanage an organization. There are too many details. I cannot think of them of all, remember them all, and follow up on them all. Envisioning every permutation and combination that a project may take is actually easier than following up with all of the people, all of the tasks, at all of the times required.

Accordingly, I have found it most important for the individual responsible for a task to have a clear picture, well explained to management, and well vetted by probing questions. Then, that individual is operating to a vision in his or her own mind. That vision is clear, has been explained to and understood by management, and includes reasonable, acceptable deadlines and benchmarks. Those deadlines and performance benchmarks are not imposed by management but offered by the visionary person who is executing his or her own plan.

I once had a supervisor we will call Flossie. Flossie maintained time controls over all projects and all information. I remember working with John who had a doctorate in chemical engineering from a major university in Texas, who joined our organization. Having felt frustration for years, I had been stripped of much enthusiasm and initiative. I thought that the drudgery of working in a blind, black box for Flossie was simply the way industry operated. As I talked to John I learned that his experience in other organizations included much more freedom, individual responsibility, and initiative. I came to learn that it is nearly impossible to create a vision in one’s own mind, communicate that vision to another, expect that other person to act on the vision and implement it, and then to observe the result of their work and recognize it as the original outcome envisioned.

Instead, it is more productive and efficient to work with someone else who has a vision, help them develop a plan for that vision in their mind, and then support them in accomplishing it. Thus, trusting their vision, and periodically updating one’s own knowledge by conversation keeps one apprized of how the implementation is tracking the plan. This is far superior to trying to dictate one’s own vision and hope to recognize it in the execution and ultimate output of another.

In his great, insightful novel, “Lord Jim,” Joseph Conrad talks about a ship’s chandler who had “ability.” I have heard that one cannot persuade people to improve performance or abilities by offering money, but one can reward ability when it is found by paying well and encouraging such persons to stay in the organization. Large organization often have a formal process as well as a very informal process for conjuring the same objective.

I recall a technician who learned that certain equipment was going to become available in a large operation that was being shut down, dismantled, and otherwise put out of service. This technician identified several very important pieces of equipment used in that operation that we could use in a project at hand.

Obtaining the required access, he and some fellow technicians obtain a truck, drove to the site of the operation being decommissioned, and picked up several pieces of equipment. His response to how he had acquired such items was “Don’t ask. You don’t want to know.” Knowing what was possible, what was authorized, how to obtain the proper authorizations, as well as the value of possession as nine tenths of the law, this technician proved himself invaluable. A manager insisting on dotting every “i,”crossing every “T,” and doing everything in sequence could never have obtained by any linear process the results regularly obtained by this pragmatic technician. That is something to ponder in managing people and organizations at all levels.

Years ago I accepted a position with one of America’s largest corporations. My first day on the job at the laboratory where I worked I met Tom. I and several of my colleagues had doctoral degrees in engineering and the sciences. Tom was a technician with a high school diploma and considerable on-the-job training. Being raised by my father, I had never come to discount anyone’s value, integrity, or friendship, regardless of any particular status. Whether walking with peasants or princes, everyone appreciates being respected and heard.

I struck up a friendship with Tom and found him to be a good source of cultural information about the organization where I worked. He was also very helpful and resourceful. Later, when I had transferred to a different major division of the corporation, I had the opportunity to recommend Tom for a technician position there. Over the years, the friendship as well as the professional association were both very productive. His understanding of the bowels of the organization and how to obtain resources when resources were supposedly unavailable was absolutely critical to the success of many projects.

My friendship with Tom confirmed an underlying philosophy of life that all people are valuable, are to be respected, and should be permitted the opportunity to make themselves valuable to the organization. Many years later after my career had taken a very radical shift in direction and geography, I was still able to come back to a very warm welcome at Tom’s home.

“What is a name? … A rose by any other name would smell as sweet,” says Juliet in Shakespeare’s play. In business, a person’s name is perhaps more important to them than in social situations. Hearing one’s own name is affirmation to an individual that somebody recognizes that person. Being recognized as a contributor, participant, valuable resource, or any other person of note affirms to an individual that he or she is not a lost minion in an organization. Many people apologize that they are “very bad with names.” Being good with names is a matter of learning them, perhaps more than remembering them. One remembers what is important. Accordingly, to remember an individual’s name is to state subtly that names are important and that the particular individual’s name is important.

Remembering a name begins with concentration. Listen to a name while looking intently into that person’s face, and listen for some fact that will tie the name to some characteristic. This key is recognized by many experts on remembering. The tie may be humorous or even negative. However, one can find something about occupation, face, background, height, shape, or the like that will tie the face to the name.

Another factor in learning names is time. The investment is in taking the time to learn a name, turn the name over in one’s mind, consider the individual, and otherwise create a link. Thereafter, reviewing a stack of business cards or a brief list of names jotted down will refresh memory. Thereafter, any followup is a further addition to memory.

Faces may actually be easier to remember than names. Knowing that I have met a particularly face before, I don’t hesitate to step up, shake hands, extend a greeting of recognition and request to be reminded of the name. Many people are afraid to do so. However, remembering the face, and taking the initiative to step forward and introduce oneself again is completely permissible, and welcome. One need not let pride make a former acquaintance a stranger.

« go back — keep looking »

Recently Written

• $1 MILLION, AND I MEAN IT
• Please pay attention to the reality on your right and on your Left
• Keep Your Eye on the Customer and the Contract Requirements
• Rocketman and Super Powers
• Balancing Power and Control
• Facts are Facts
• Run Silent, Run Deep–Superior Performance Trumps Entitlement
• Creativity Is Not Just For “le Artiste.”
• Get Value By Knowing How Business, Lawyers, and Industry Actually Operate
• Shakespeare said, “First, We Kill All the Lawyers,” But Did He Forget Congressmen and Others?

Categories

• Announcements
• Business
• Litigation
• News
• Patents
• Trademarks
• Uncategorized
• Valuing Intellectual Property

Archives

• July 2009
• June 2009
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007

Blogroll

Admin

• Register
• Login
• Wordpress
• XHTML

Search