Posts Tagged ‘performance management’

Poor management

Poor line management is recognised by workplaces as having a negative impact on the performance of the business. A report by the CIPD and the UK Government published in 2012 revealed that more than two-fifths of managers regard their own line manager as ineffective. Meanwhile, a 2012 study from the Chartered Management Institute found that 43 per cent of managers are rated as ineffective or highly ineffective by staff.

The effects of poor management can harm the growth and competitiveness of a business. Research has shown that poor management can have a detrimental impact on employee engagement levels within a business, which in turn affects employee retention and performance, customer service and satisfaction, and business performance.

To deal with these issues, the UK Government has set up a new cross-party Parliamentary Commission to examine why so many line managers are “failing” their employer. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Management (APPGM), in partnership with the Chartered Management Institute (CMI), will examine how management can be transformed to drive growth across UK businesses to boost the economy.

The commission will attempt to highlight where employers have successfully used innovative approaches to management that have helped create growth and increase employee engagement. The most innovative and successful businesses will be invited to discuss their techniques with the Commission in Parliament. The commission plans to report on their findings in 2014.

The aim, according to Peter Ayliffe, CMI president and fellow co-chair of the Commission,’ is to identify the practical changes in line management behaviour that managers will need to make to lead and grow our businesses in the years ahead.’

For me, it is really positive to see the Government attempt to deal with the issue of poor management. Too many businesses are being held back by line managers not having the required skills to lead their people properly. Hopefully the work by the Commission will lead to the provision of training and support networks that UK businesses can tap into for their managers. This will especially benefit the smaller businesses that don’t have the expertise or resources to tackle the problem of underperforming managers.



According to L&D Manager Jeff Turner at Facebook, the social network giant has introduced a novel approach to dealing with poorly performing managers in which they are given a ‘get out of jail free card’. Instead of putting them through the normal process of performance management, Facebook managers are given the option of dropping-out from direct line management altogether.

Their approach is an attempt to lessen the gap between managers who are doing a very good job and those who aren’t. This is because poor line management can harm the development of a company. Research has shown that poor management can have a detrimental impact on employee engagement levels within a business, which in turn affects employee retention and performance, customer service and satisfaction, and business performance.

In order to support this initiative, Facebook have developed a manager philosophy – “set context, create focus, drive impact and cultivate growth” – backed up by its model for manager effectiveness. This is instead of more traditional competency models.  Their approach also supports the make-up of its workforce, in which 70% are from Generation Y. Those from Generation Y are the most high-maintenance and the most high-performing in the workforce, so a novel approach to managing performance is required.

Since Facebook introduced the initiative, ten per cent of managers have given up line management every year in favour of a role with no direct reports. Facebook’s dual career track approach allows employees to reach a senior position without managing people. They are of the belief that management should not be about getting a pay rise or other benefits, it should be about wanting to manage people.

This approach is great for a large company like Facebook, who can invest the time and resource in developing such a strategy, but most businesses don’t have this opportunity. In reality, most businesses have to rely on effective recruitment practices when hiring people managers, as there is no ‘get out jail free card’. Instead they will rely on assessing the candidate’s suitability for the role through competency based questioning and psychometric testing. Once the candidate has been hired, businesses will have to ensure that sufficient coaching and training is in place to develop their managers further.

This flexible approach from Facebook in dealing with underperformance certainly makes it easier for them, as it reduces the need for performance management, but most other businesses will just have to ensure they select the right candidate first time round.


Recent business articles show that people managers are coming under greater pressure to ensure they manage their staff well. The following recent headlines demonstrate this:

  • Lack of management accountability eroding staff engagement
  • Lack of management training causing culture problems, finds CIPD
  • Only 3 per cent of firms find performance management great value

The reason why poor management needs to be tackled is because staff engagement is directly influenced by people managers. Research has shown that higher employee engagement is associated with gains in employee retention and performance, customer service and satisfaction, and business performance. A report published in 2012 by the government, in partnership with the CIPD, found that more than two-fifths of managers regard their own line manager as ineffective, while it concluded that the problem was holding back the UK’s economic recovery.

Government Review

This issue of poor management has even prompted the UK Government to begin to looking in to what can be done with the launch a new cross-party Parliamentary Commission. Led by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Management (APPGM) and the Chartered Management Institute (CMI), the commission aims to focus on how management can be transformed to drive growth across UK businesses to boost the economy. The commission aims to highlight where employers have successfully used innovative approaches to management that have helped create growth. The best and most innovative will be invited to discuss their work with the Commission in Parliament.

Tackling the problem

The Corporate Leadership Council conducted research which showed that managers who set clear objectives, discuss their expectations and outline how performance will be measured can have higher performing teams. According to the findings, the top three factors that managers must focus on to improve employee performance are:

  1. Explaining performance evaluation standards
  2. Ensuring projects provide learning
  3. Providing experiences that develop

In my previous articles I have discussed the importance of managers providing more work based training that has meaning for employees. This is based on the 70:20:10 framework of work based learning and Daniel Pink’s research on what motivates employees. I also examined how performance management could be improved by focusing on setting mastery goals, as this gives employees greater control over their work.

Forward thinking

I would hope that the Government review of management practices finds innovative ways in which to improve manager effectiveness in the UK. This should be based around manager support in the performance management process and interventions that afford employees the opportunities to participate in work based learning. These do not have to be costly interventions, out of reach for many businesses, but common sense solutions that ensure managers can get the most from staff.

If these issues aren’t tackled, then according to Barry Sheerman MP, chair of the APPGM:

‘ ….too many businesses will fail because of bad management. This has to change, because the quality of management and leadership will be absolutely key to how well our businesses do in creating jobs and wealth in the years ahead’.


In my last post I talked about how UK businesses believe there is a deficit in leadership and management skills, and that just 3% of organisations worldwide report their overall performance management system provides exceptional value. In order to deal with these issues I discussed how workers are looking for more meaning in their working lives, and that environments where creative, right-brain thinking is encouraged, with more self direction, can help achieve this. In short, I concluded that line managers need to become more effective at coaching their staff and one way in which they may be able to do this is through more effective goal setting. There are three different types of goals line managers can encourage their staff to set; and they are:

An outcome goal is something that can be influenced but cannot be controlled. For instance, an employee may state that their goal for the performance year is to be better influencing people at a more senior level. This is quite a common goal that I see within workplaces and the one to be avoided. The reason being is because it offers no context or example of how the goal might be achieved. Without a specific scenario in which this is to be evaluated, the employee has no control over the situation.

A performance goal, on the face of it, sounds pretty reasonable and has more depth to it than an outcome goal. For example, an employee may want to achieve X-number of sales per month, or get at least one of their business ideas agreed to by a more senior member of the organisation in the year. So although there is a clearer target, compared to the Outcome goal, the employee is still unable to fully control the outcome of these. For instance, the employee may not be able to control the amount of sales they may make because the business has had a drop in referrals for them to convert. Or the idea that they pitch to the senior team might be good, but their other colleagues just always seem to be one step ahead.

Instead, what the employee wants to be setting themselves are Mastery goals as they can fully control them and they aren’t ambiguous. If an employee is not able to achieve their Outcome or Performance goal, then they are likely to become disheartened easily at the first sign of failure. A Mastery goal however, is one that allows the employee to focus the mind on what it is they are trying to achieve and drills right down into the core of that goal.

For instance, rather than state you want to achieve X-number of sales per month, it would be better to state the following:

  • I want to ensure that I stay up-to-date with all current products that we sell
  • I will ensure that I continue to keep in contact with my branch network, on a monthly basis, about sales referrals.

Or, for the employee who wants to get better at influencing, why not set the following goals instead:

  • Improve my ability to analyse and report on data so I can present back to my senior managers and influence decisions.
  • Continue to follow market trends and important industry voices, via social media, to assist in providing me with credible information for making decisions.

The defining characteristic of the Mastery goal is that it is controllable and it digs down to the critical essentials of the task at hand. These are the types of goals that managers need to have their employees set if they want the performance management process to become worthwhile. Employees want to exert control over their working lives, and letting them set ambiguous goals is not going to help this.


Leadership Development

Research undertaken by the CIPD recently found that 72% of organisations reported a deficit in leadership and management skills, even though two-thirds of organisations claim to provide training for their managers. However, as I pointed out in my previous article, this training may not be delivering much value.

The report also highlighted that only 36% of organisations say that individuals promoted into managerial roles receive additional training, with 51% saying ‘sometimes’, and 12% providing no training at all for new managers. Central to these failings is that efforts to foster positive manager behaviours are being undermined by the lack of a consistent message of what organisations expect of leaders.

Commenting on the research, Ksenia Zheltoukhova the CIPD’s research associate, stated that:

It’s time for business to identify and address the roots of bad management, recognising that a more consistent approach to training and supporting leaders at all levels of an organisation is needed to drive sustainable performance.

Performance Management

According to Mercer’s 2013 Global Performance Management Survey, conducted on 1,050 organisations in 53 countries, “just 3% of organisations worldwide report their overall performance management system provides exceptional value”. Top of the list, in terms of the key drivers behind this, is the skill of managers in how successfully they set employee goals, provide feedback, evaluate performance, and link performance to critical talent management decisions.

Only 58 per cent of managers were deemed ‘marginally skilled in providing career development coaching and direction’, by survey respondents, and, only 7 per cent of managers were felt to be ‘highly skilled at having candid dialogued with their direct reports about performance’.

In summary then, what the research by both the CIPD and Mercer is telling us is that businesses feel there is a deficit in leadership and management skills, and this is impacting on how successfully employees are performance managed and developed in the workplace. But a major part of the problem is the lack of clear strategy when it comes to developing leaders within the workplace. So what is it then that businesses can be do to try and deal with these issues?

The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us

In order to try and improve this gap between leadership skills and performance management, businesses need to think differently about what they believe makes managers truly effective, and then develop a learning and development strategy around this. As pointed out in this article:

The best companies for leadership recognise that … high levels of emotional intelligence, commitment to continuous learning and analytical thinking are now critical at every level of the organisation.

At every level of the organisation, staff are looking for more meaning in the work lives and management need to be aware of this if performance management is to be effective. The traditional notions of “carrot and stick” to motivate staff will not deliver high performance, it is only likely to produce donkeys. Instead, managers need training and developing on what is required to manage the workforce in the modern economy.

The MAP to Success

Within this video, Daniel Pink talks about research which goes against the dominant thinking that if you want people to perform better you reward them. Within his presentation he talks about research that has consistently shown that in tasks that require even “rudimentary cognitive skill”, offering people larger rewards leads to poorer performance. This is because traditional rewards aren’t always as effective as we think, they narrow the mind and focus; meaning that people can be less creative. Instead, if you want to foster a creative workplace, people need to have the following in their working lives:

  • Mastery – the desire to become better at something that matters
  • Autonomy – the urge to direct our own lives
  • Purpose – the need to contribute to something greater than ourselves

In effect, what businesses need to do, is develop a clear performance management strategy that equips managers with the tools to deal with staff in the knowledge economy of the 21st century. This will allow them to foster environments were creative, right-brain thinking is encouraged and people are self directed. Employees now will not blindly follow what they are told by their managers, and will instead look for more purpose and meaning in their working lives, as such businesses need to recognise this if performance management is to improve.

Related articles

The beatles performing

In my last post I explored the subject of how the traditional business approach to employee learning and development is to isolate a particular area for development and then build a training event around this; most likely away from the workplace. My motivation for writing this was from an episode of this year’s The Apprentice in which the contestants gave an extreme example of how this traditional approach to employee training can go horribly wrong, albeit with actions that were recognisable.

My view on how we can counter the problems highlighted from this traditional approach to employee learning and development helped spark some good debate amongst L&D professionals, who were keen to understand what the future of workplace training may hold. I first of all want to make clear that the traditional approach to learning and development, (e.g. specific training days away from the workplace), are still relevant, but as part of a wider performance management intervention.

The 70:20:10 Framework

The 70:20:10 framework helps to give an alternative as to how training and development can be managed more efficiently by businesses. Simply put, the framework sees individual learning and development within the workplace occurring as follows:

  • 70% is through on-the-job experience
  • 20% is through working with others
  • 10% is through structured courses and programmes

The 70:20:10 framework is rooted in research carried out through the 1980s at the Centre for Creative Leadership (CCL). It is based upon professor Allen Tough’s work on adult learning, in which he identified that ‘about 70% of all learning projects are planned by the learner himself’.

It is worth noting though, that the 70:20:10 framework is not an absolute ratio, but it is a helpful framework for businesses to consider in designing training and development interventions in the workplace.


The “70” is on-the-job learning – everything that employees can learn from the activities they undertake as part of their role. Examples of this include:

  • Work shadowing a colleague
  • Reflecting on a work experience or project
  • Using manuals / guides to complete a task
  • Practising a coaching technique on a team member
  • Problem solving


The “20” refers to the learning  you can gain from working with others in the workplace. Examples of this includes:

  • Mentoring
  • Coaching
  • Working with colleagues from other departments / areas
  • Utilising internal and external networks
  • Collaborative learning through social technologies

Change Agent

What the 70:20:10 framework can do is provide a structure into which performance management strategies can be extended, to cover more than just attendance on courses or corporate away days. The key to making it work though, is ensuring that managers are effective in managing day-to-day performance and actively supporting employees in reflecting on their workplace experiences . As Charles Jennings points out here:

research carried out by the Corporate Leadership Council showed that Managers who set clear objectives, explain their expectations, and clearly set out how they plan to measure performance have teams that outperform others by almost 20%.

What this points to is the importance that businesses must give in ensuring that training and development is anchored to the normal daily workflow, instead of separate from it in isolated learning interventions. But even if businesses want to pay more attention to the 70:20:10 framework, they also need to ensure that line managers are equipped in supporting this, but as can be seen from this article, this is an area of real concern.

The Apprentice Training

In this year’s instalment of The Apprentice there was an episode in which the contestants were tasked with organising a corporate training “away day” for two blue chip clients in team-building, communication and listening skills. For anyone who did not see it, both teams failed to deliver a training event that fulfilled the clients’ needs, as they simply threw together several “team building” exercises, with a tenuous link to an overall themed day.  One team had a back to school theme that included cake making and wine tasting, whilst the other had an army theme that included archery and sumo wrestling!

Although The Apprentice is TV entertainment, and not reflective of a real workplace environment, it did highlight many errors of training and development design that many businesses can fall foul of; namely that:

  • The training has little impact on person’s day-to-day job
  • No meaningful follow-up is planned after the event
  • There is no measure of the return on investment (ROI)

Part of the problem could be that the traditional approach to training and development is to identify a learning need, and then design a programme away from the workplace that addresses this. By working this way, businesses can encounter the errors highlighted above and end up with training events that are similar to those experienced in The Apprentice. The reason for this may be because the learning is taking place away from the job, it is less meaningful and therefore harder to generate any real change in behaviours.

Extracting Learning From Work

In order to counter these issues, the answer may in fact be to look beyond the traditional idea of workplace training and development were you inject a learning intervention into the workflow, by instead looking to extract learning from work. This idea was examined by Charles Jennings in the following article and is based upon research by the Corporate Executive Board.

What was discussed in this article is that the traditional approach to employee training and development is to isolate a particular area for development, say communication, and then build a training event around this. Most likely this event would be delivered in a course away from the workplace.

So, using the example from The Apprentice; the senior managers were attending the “away day” with the explicit purpose of developing new team-building, communication and listening skills, to then transfer them back to the workplace. One of the reasons why the contestants may have failed on this task was because the training activities designed were separate from the normal workflow and therefore, without the context in which to reflect on this, the learning was minimal.

Context is Key

Context is critical to this theory, because as Charles Jennings points out:

if people have the opportunity to learn and develop as part of their work and they are supported by their manager, then learning will be much better transformed into measurable behavioural change and performance improvement.

Rather than injecting learning into the workflow, extracting focuses on allowing workers to learn more from their day-to-day work, without having to adjust their normal work practices by undertaking specific activities, (e.g. attending an “away day”). Examples of how this could work in practice are:

  • After completing a project, all those involved could be by encouraged to reflect on their experiences to help draw out new learning experiences.
  • Managers providing new and challenging work to develop skills on-the-job.
  • Business leaders introducing social and mobile technologies to encourage collaboration and the sharing of ideas.

Measuring the Return

By moving to training and development that is aligned closely to the workflow, businesses can measure the impact by linking it in with normal performance management metrics and reviews. This helps to give greater clarity as to whether training is transferring into improved work based performance.

These ideas may seem alien to conventional wisdom on how best to train and develop staff, but by sticking to a traditional training model like that used in The Apprentice, it can only lead to more time and money being wasted by businesses.

Related articles