Johanna Elaine T.

Tandoc
This article is taken from "Performance Management -
Why Doesn't It Work" by Robert Bacal.

Performance Management
Using Bi-directional Performance
Management
Summary: Here's a secret about performance management and
performance appraisal -- they work best when information goes
both ways. From manager to employee and from employee to
manager, feedback can travel so both people work as a team so
the employee improves his or her performance, and the manager
improves his or her ability to help employees perform beter.

Over the past few years, there has been more careful
examination of traditional forms of performance management and
appraisal, and a number of people have suggested that there are
a number of reasons why most performance management
systems do NOT add value, or recoup the time and expense
needed to carry out the programs. In our book Why Does
Performance Management Fail, we have outlined many of these
criticisms.

While it is one thing to suggest that organizations scrap their

existing programs (and that's probably not a bad idea), it is
another to suggest ways that are better. We are going to look at
a half-way approach to improving traditional performance
management, something that you can introduce into your
workplace immediately. Before we explain bi-directional
performance management, let's look at why it is a good idea.

The Nature of Performance

Traditional performance management approaches are based on

the assumption that an organization's productivity is additive.
That is, if employee A and employee B and employee B do their
parts, the organization will, as a whole accomplish it's goals and
objectives. It also treats employees as independent...that is the
work of employee A does not impact on that of employee B.

A bit of thought on the issue brings us to the conclusion that

performance is not additive, and a number of the factors that
affect individual performance are not under the direct control of
staff members. We are beginning to understand that performance
is a result of the system of work, and all it's parts, not just each
individual employee. Employees affect each other's abilities to do
their individual job tasks. One "bad" employee can actually
impact on many, while a "good" employee may not do only their
own job, but help others do theirs.

Perhaps even more important is the relationship between

supervisor/manager and staff member in determining the
effectiveness of work. One way of conceiving of this is that while
the staff member works for the boss, the boss also works for the
employee. In practical terms, that might mean creating and
obtaining resources so the employee can succeed, clearing out
obstacles, addressing problems not under the control of the
employee, but influenceable by the boss, etc. We call this bi-
directional influence.
So while individual performance is influenced by many factors
within the system of work, the primary one we can do something
about is the boss-employee relationship. Rather than look at an
additive model of performance, we recognize that performance is
a dynamic result of manager helping staff, and staff helping
management (it's much more complex than that but we have to
start somewhere.

If performance is a function of the manager-employee

relationship, how can we use performance management and
appraisal to improve performance?

Bi-directional Performance Management

Bi-directional performance management recognizes that for
performance to improve, both manager and employee must
receive feedback on how well they are fulfilling their obligations
to the organization and to each other. It also recognizes that
each staff member and his/her manager must clarify and
negotiate expectations regarding each other's roles on a regular
basis.

And perhaps, most critically, bi-directional performance

management is designed for a single purpose: to improve the
performance of the organization. It's not to determine pay, it's
not to affix blame, it's not to put more paper in the personnel
files. Pure and simple, it is to improve performance.

The Nuts & Bolts

A nice characteristic of bi-directional performance management is

that it requires very little additional work. It "fits" in with existing
mandatory systems quite well, unlike something like the much
broader 360 appraisal methods which are unwieldy, expensive
and difficult.

The core of bi-directional performance management is the

performance planning phase. While traditional performance
management systems focus on what the employee should be
doing during the next period, and establishing standards of
performance, bi-directional performance management adds the
additional component of clarifying the manager's obligations and
responsibilities to ensure that the employee can achieve his or
her objectives and standards. So each performance planning
episode will contain:

dialogue to establish and define the job tasks of the employee.

dialogue to establish what the employee needs from the boss to
achieve those goals

Note that both of these are negotiated through cooperative

dialogue.

From the manager's point of view, what kinds of questions would

we need to have answered to capture this second component?
You can probably think up many on your own, but here are some
examples:

What barriers do you see to achieving your objectives (goals,

standards), and what can I do now and in the future to help you
overcome them?

More specifically:

Do you have the physical resources to do this task?

Do you have the skills needed to do these tasks?
Do you have the proper authority to do these tasks?
Is there anything you need me to do "upstairs" that would help?
If you are lacking the skills or resources, what can I do to help
you get what you need?

At the end of the performance planning episode, the employee

should have some form of action plan for each task or project.
And, so should the manager.

On the appraisal side, (actually we should call it the feedback

side), the process is again similar to traditional methods. Rather
than manager giving feedback to the employee, the employee
also has the opportunity to give feedback to the manager on how
effective s/he was in fulfilling the obligations outlined n the
planning phase. Once this bi-directional feedback process is
completed, the planning process begins again. We set up a
continuous planning-feedback loop.

So, what we have done is begun to recognize the bi-directional

effects that affect performance. We are putting both manager and
employee on the same side for the purpose of making the
organization more effective.

Some Caveats

Bi-directional performance management isn't going to cure all the

ills in your existing performance management system -- it is
more a Band-Aid than anything else. That is because there are
many other reasons why standard performance management
methods are failing in many workplaces. However, since the
reality is that most organizations require some sort of traditional
system, the question shifts to "How can we make the best of this,
and at least get some benefit from having to do it?"