A sometime client phoned me recently, stumped and looking for help. He explained that he had completed development of a new performance management program, was in the process of rolling it out to the organization, and was meeting with tremendous resistance from leadership and employees alike. He couldn't figure out what the problem was. Could he email me the materials describing his new program, so that I could review them and then discuss them with him?
It was a quick call; he was in a hurry to get his stuff in front of me and anxious for my commentary. I agreed to take a look. We hung up and I waited for his email and attachments, which came quickly.
I looked through the materials, a new performance management form, featuring a detailed set of behavioral competencies against which all employees would be assessed as well as a new rating scale, and accompanying set of policy guidelines describing the performance management cycle, the roles and responsibilities of the different participants (i.e., employees, their supervisors, HR, etc.). Without any real context to put them in, it was hard to effectively judge the materials, but I didn't see anything that struck me as particularly troublesome.
I phoned my client back and told him that my review of the materials didn't produce any immediate insights as to the source of his difficulties. Perhaps he could talk me through the process he followed to develop the program and his plan for implementing it.
That's when the tip-off came. He launched into a description of how he put together the new program and prepared it for launch. It was one "I" statement after another.
"First, I started by ..."
"And then I ...."
"When I got to that point, I ..."
"And when I thought about it a little, I decided to ..."
You get the drift. It became clear to me - and to him, after we discussed it - that the reason for the organization's resistance to his new program stemmed from the fact that he involved and got input from absolutely nobody but himself. Nobody else had been given a voice, and there had been no opportunity to test his ideas and plans against the perspective of anyone else in the organization.
This is a bad approach for a number of reasons. First, a process that provides the chance for input and involvement - from leadership as well as the employees and front-line managers who will be key "customers" of the program - is essential in paving the way for acceptance. Even more, drawing upon multiple perspectives and vantage points is critical to identifying (and figuring out how to deal with) potential barriers to program success. This is true not only for performance management programs, but for any HR program or initiative.
So beware the peril of too much "I" in your program design efforts. Seek opinions, input and involvement from as broad a group as you can, at multiple stages of the process. Sure, it means more time and hassle, but my experience would suggest that the benefits of taking this step make it way more than worthwhile.
Otherwise you risk finding yourself in my client's shoes, having invested a ton of time and energy in a program destined to go absolutely nowhere.
Comments