What Can Be Done To Improve Employee Performance?

turning it into a productivity tool? Control   based performance management systems tend to  focus on the consequences of poor performance,   and, they rely heavily on things like performance  improvement plans, where underperformance   is called out and pips are used, really, as 

setting the stage for termination. these forms   of performance management systems are kind of a  hallmark of poor or even toxic workplace cultures,   where productivity based performance management  systems, on the other hand, are really focused   on setting and managing expectations. They set  the guardrails for what people can do within   the limits of their. Within the authority of  their role, and they provide regular check   ins and support to help people achieve the 

expectations that we set. A lot of how your   performance management system is designed kind of  depends on how HR is viewed within your company.

we're trying to improve your performance. And it's  something that is, you know, when that happens,   everyone knows what's going on. You're not fooling  anybody. You know, you're putting lipstick on a  

pig, in a sense. Right? And to me, I always am  always like, ugh, that's not a good sign when   we're doing, when we see it, doing initial  assessments, because it's like you're just,   you know, you're really just trying to use  positive language to address something that you   see is very negative, and then it kind of means  you don't really have a plan on how we're going to   actually improve employee performance, how we're  actually going to manage employees performance,  

to have them do better, reach higher, and,  you know, and excel. We're just using this   language of performance management and employee  performance as, just as a synonym for discipline.

of consequence. Totally reasonable approach. It's  in how the tools are used and how they're thought   of within the organization that really, makes the  difference between control based and productivity   based. I, can, like, I have evaluated a lot of  performance management systems for clients. And   many times when we, like you said, when we're  doing the initial assessments or the early   stages of, engagements with clients, we're  looking at what they're doing and how they  

approach these things. And many times the only  performance management tool they use is a PIP. And if the only way that you monitor and  manage performance is through corrective action,   then you're not trying to support people to  improve their performance. You are disciplining   people for failing to meet your expectations. Now,  it's not every time, but the vast majority of time  

that this happens. Expectations are not clearly  set in advance, and there's not a system in place   for supporting people doing the regular check  ins, whether that's quarterly, evaluations to   see. Are we on track with our. To meet our goals  and what can we do to support you to continue to   improve that? It's a once a year sit down. Or when  something significant happens, we slap them with a  

you messed up, here's a pip. If you don't fix it  in six months, we're going to fire you mentality.

four, we call the four faces of HR. Basically  that HR, the h and the r kind of have a different   meaning or, you know, in different organizations  based on kind of the mindset and the view of both   employee relations and HR departments. And I  guess performance management would fall into  

that. So I think it might not hurt for us to kind  of talk about that again and then kind of talk   about what does performance management look like  in those different environments in hopes that the   person listening to this you'll be able to kind  of maybe connect with, yeah, that kind of sounds   a bit like my workplace or, yeah, that is maybe  some of the mindset issues that we're struggling   with and, and hopefully, again, make some kind  of, again, clear understanding for what kind of,  

how can employee performance be improved based  on the type of HR and kind of the governing   philosophies around employee relations  that kind of are in these workplaces.

as a control tool either. Very likely, it's just  a box that needs to be checked. Right. once a   year we have a performance conversation so that we  can tick the box that says we have, on an annual   basis, done a performance, management criteria.  We've met our obligations onto the next thing.

do what I did. This year, I'll just do it   better next year, or sure, I'll, you know, and  you're, you and sometimes even your supervisor,   you're both like, why are we even  doing this? It's. It's a exercise to,   it's administrative exercise. It really  has no value on my day, on my daily work.

than check the box. It's done. Let's move on.

if. So, if you're in a situation where you're,  you know, feeling, you know, that, you know,   senior leadership or those above you are limiting  your ability to be empowered to do anything about   this because it's just an administrative process,  then that's the mentality I suggest you find a   way to bring to them. If this is something  that is not important, then we're saying,   and we're living and we're walking the walk, that 

employee performance doesn't matter. And kind   of put that on them to say, we can do better.  I've got a plan to do better, but I need to be   supported in my performance to do my job better  so that I can help them do their jobs better.   But make it very clear, if this whole, the whole  process of managing performance doesn't matter,   then performance doesn't matter. All right, so the  next, type of space of HR is when HR stands for  

the highly reactive department. And this is about  when the daily interactions of the HR departments   is really just pointing out fires. Sometimes this  looks like the kind of HR roles where it's just   about try to fill vacancies. And the majority of  all the HR time is spent just trying to, like,   you know, put bums in seats because we can't get  enough staff. Or it's about trying to run around  

and put out kind of interpersonal fires. And  every day is just about reacting to what happened   this morning or yesterday or whatever, and it's  really just kind of running from fire to fire and   never feeling like you're ever getting ahead. And  this is both depressing and depressingly common.

behind it. Right. There needs to be,   you need to have the ability to, work  on things before they become a critical   problem that needs to be addressed or reacted  to. So I see the, this face, of HR very closely   aligning with the control mentality out of that  reactive mindset of, well, we just, we need to,   as much as possible, control how many fires we are  putting out at a time. so when something comes up,  

we respond. We institute, a performance  improvement, plan and give them a timeframe.   And if they don't adhere to it, then we move  on to discipline, or termination procedures.

have capacity to do. And man, I've seen that in  so many, I've heard stories, especially from,   younger employees and stuff like that, that have  gotten these jobs. They're great. They don't hear   anything super concerning. They're looking forward  to their probationary period and they are just let   go within the probationary period with very little  warning because they just didn't quite become   problem free enough, that it was just easier  to replace them to the HR team. And that's sad.

their staff to improve performance. Unfortunately,   when that doesn't happen, it just falls back  and creates more work for HR professionals.

But then we kind of see that HR is in a constantly   reactive mode and managers are constantly  reactive mode and employees are constantly   reactive mode and senior leadership is. So it  becomes organizational wide thing. So when it's,   again, when I say an employee is not, when  they bring a new employee on and they don't,   the manager doesn't have time to correct  the employee performance because they're,   because they're putting off fires constantly. 

So they kind of kick the problem to HR. And HR   is like, well, either we, you know, do you want  to just replace them? Because that's all we have   capacity to do. And then that's usually how it  happens. It's not someone intentionally going,   you know, let's just leave. Let's do this with,  you know, as a plan. It's just people trying   to keep their head above water. No one has time 

to get ahead. No one. People are, you're right,   they're often not trained enough how to actually  improve a new employee's performance, or address,   employees whose performance has been, is dipped  and is struggling. So it's, and they don't have   the capacity or the bandwidth to be trained. And  HR doesn't have the capacity to kind of put in   some preact or proactive stuff. All this to say  that usually the highly reactive problems are not,  

don't, don't just live within HR. HR is often  reflective of it, but it's almost like a lot of   the reactive momentum gets built up in other  departments and then ends up almost like,   you know, being pushed into HR. HR is often  more in a reactive mode because everyone else's   reactive problems are now their problems,  which kind of increases the problem tenfold.

water. And the. So what we would say is that any  type of ability to work with the management team,   to build some level of proactive  employee support, to improve performance,   to give people more opportunity and to, to have  structure, have clear expectations, so that,   that way the employee performance can actually  be improved and not be, either you're perfect   or you're gone, kind of, you know, either 

or kind of situation. Anything that you   can do to allow employees to actually have  the chance to actually improve with some   kind of clarity and support and clear, with  clear expectations is really going to, it's   going to serve you very, very well. I  know it's a tough thing to say. Just,   you have to do more work in order to answer it.  When you're in a highly reactive department.

every day is just putting out fires. So  sometimes just having someone else take   that off your plate and guide you through  the transformation is often the only.

it creates a lot of challenges. And again, it  tends to be, very much a HR is the bad guy HR,   you know, it's the toxic side of HR, or the HR  is not your friend mentality. Don't share or say   anything to HR because they're just going to use  it against you. These sentiments that we hear very   frequently from employees, if you've spent any  time talking to employees, you may have heard   these. This, mindset is again, quite prevalent. 

and it tends to view performance management   as a mechanism for restricting, what employees  can do rather than powering them to do better.

maintain the restriction. It is about, you know,  like you cross this line, we're going to put you   on this passive aggressive pip. So that way that  you, you know, you don't think we're the bad guys,   even though we are, you know, tinting our fingers  in the background. you know, that, that's kind of   some of the way that people feel about, you  know, about this. And often where we see this   negative idea around Pip tends to kind of come  from this hovering and restricting focus of HR.

well, employees are liabilities. We have to  manage them, we have to suppress them. We have   to restrict them because they're a cost center.  There are liabilities and expenses. So we have to   mitigate that risk. So going back to the question,  what can be done to improve employee performance   in the hovering restriction department? I  don't think I got an answer for that one.

control. Whether that stems from a fear   of employees taking advantage of us, whether  that comes from a lack of understanding of   what, of how employees, can be treated when  treated as an asset rather than a liability,   can really enhance our entire business model. If  you are in the hovering and restricting mentality,   you probably are not going to approach  performance management as a productivity  

tool because it's about control. So if to  how do you do it better in that situation,   in that mentality is that you need to change,  you need to shift the mindset and what HR means   in that organization away, from focusing on  restricting actions to empowering performance.

any kind of sustainable way. It's something that,  it's just you're always going to struggle with   employee performance because employees are only  going to give you enough to stay out of trouble. Because they don't trust  you. They are probably looking   for a new job right now and keeping their heads.

about providing resources to humans. And it really   is about that idea of, we get that you are a  person who we need to nurture and support to   if we want you to achieve great heights. So we're  behind you and we're going to help you do that.   And if you work in this kind of department or real  organization, you are lucky because you are not in   the majority. But there's a lot that can be done  to improve performance. Ah, in this organization.

outcomes. It is the mentality that we personally   push in through all of our work when we're working  with clients. It's all about shifting the mindset   to this idea that if we can focus on improving  the employee experience, then that will have a   direct impact on our organizational outcomes. 

It will improve productivity, it'll improve,   performance, it'll improve retention  rates, it will help us attract talent,   to our organization, and it will increase our  profitability, it will increase our market share,   it will increase our ability to innovate  and pivot as new situations arise. Right.   It has a direct impact on your bottom line,  but it requires a lot of work and effort.

lead to higher performance. Or on the other hand,   lower expectations can lead to lower performance.  Basically, the idea of a self fulfilling prophecy   between what you expect of people and what they  will provide you. Now, what's interesting about   the Pygmalion effect is that it requires that the 

kind of sincere expectation. So it's a matter of   saying that, if you have a boss who says, hey,  I'm excited for you to take on this new project, I   want, you know, so you have my support, you let me  know what you need. I know, I know you're going to   achieve great things, and that boss walks the walk  on that, and then you're like, wow, they really   believe in me. Well, I'm going to try a little bit  harder. I'm going to, you know, I'll take them up  

when I need the help. Like, you know, they're,  they're putting, they're putting a lot of faith   in me. So I'm going to meet that faith that, you  know, then that what that creates is, you know,   a great situation where your behaviors are aligned  and you put more effort into it and you achieve   greater things than if your boss said, hey, here's  a project, just do your best. it's about setting   the bar, but then supporting that bar being met. 

And it's a pretty interesting concept in a way   that it's also a bit of an obvious concept, but  it's surprising that there is real science and   real kind of cause and effect relationship behind  the self fulfilling prophecy of pygmalion effect,   because it really does work. If you create high  expectations and support those high expectations,  

you're going to achieve a higher outcome. And  this is an idea that's a lot easier to understand   in the humans required department than it would  be in the other three types of HR departments.

Knowing, that it's an actual psychological,   effect or theory or whatever you called it, is  interesting because if it is rooted in psychology,   then it makes it a bit more tangible. If it's  a bit more tangible, then something that we can   manipulate, not manipulate in a negative sense,  but understanding that there's actual psychology   behind it allows us to use this or deploy it,  within what we do around performance management.

what success looks like. They, ah, you know,   there's regular check ins to ensure that, they  are on track to meet their, performance metrics.   They are supported with what they need to either  get back on track or to continue to meet their   expectations. And we see this time and time again  when this perform, this type of productivity,   focused performance management framework is  being utilized, people will regularly rise to   the occasion and meet the expectations that we 

set. We can set high expectations, we can expect   a lot out of people, but we have an obligation  to support them to achieve those outcomes.

but that's not what we're talking about. The  Pygmalion effect requires that the conditions that   you work in are supporting that performance and  expectation, that you're being properly utilized   and being given the opportunity to achieve it. And  there's a bit of, a practical use of the skills   that you have. And then you're being set up in  a situation to be successful, and that you're   given feedback and encouragement and redirecting  and realignment when required. And if those three  

things don't exist, then you're. Then it's.  You're not being given high expectations with   support. You're being set up to fail. M and that's  something, that is a big difference. But you're   right. The Pygmalion effect is more talked about  with high expectations and higher performance. But   it is about. It's actually a neutral idea that  it's about people rise to the expectations and   support that you give them. It's probably a better  way to define it in a more neutral way. A great  

story. that kind of summarizes that is, when I was  working in an organization, this was fairly early   in my career. I, worked in a satellite office for  this large organization. And there was an employee   who worked in the organization with me who had  a job. And I don't know what she did because,   man, she didn't do a whole lot. And her boss  was this kind of, like, whatever, stew stuff,   don't do stuff like. Like, laid back to the point  of, like, really ineffective. And so I never  

really knew what this person did. This person was  in this job for, like, for like a year or two. And   these were contract jobs that had to be renewed  by, like, it had to be renewed on an annual basis.   And at one point, the position that this woman  was in was going to be discontinued because of   how ineffective she was. And what happened was,  her boss ended up getting fired because of his   lack of ability to manage. And her project being  unrenewed was one of the many straw that broke  

the camels back, in a sense. A new manager came in  and said, okay, so I've got a year of this project   left, and it's already been canceled. So, I'm  going to bring somebody in who, let's see what   they can do with this job, because there's no real  floor on this job, because the job is already,   the position's already been seen as a failure.  So whoever I bring in is going to kind of have   free reign to do something cool because they got  to burn off the rest of this contract. And let's  

see what can happen. And what's interesting is  the person that this new manager, who wanted to   prove herself in the position, brought in  what she brought in you, James, this guy?

My manager in that time, I've talked about this  person in a, few different times in, our podcast   and in our work, because this person is still one  of my favorite human beings. Because the way that   she managed, my performance and supported me to do  cool things, really elevated my career trajectory.   so, yeah, we had nine months to do whatever we  want. Funders didn't really care because the,   performance on that program was already so low  for the previous, like, three or five years,  

that, they were riding out the contract. What was  cool was working with my manager and her having   the faith in my ability to just come to me with  something cool that you want to do. We still need   to hit the broad outcomes, but the method that  we use to get there can be completely different.   It allowed me to research and design a new way  of, doing business development, through this   organization, to support businesses with their 

recruitment and attraction, efforts. And what's   kind of amazing is that in the first six months  of that nine month dead contract, we were able   to produce, enough results that the funding  got extended. We went from a nine month dead   contract to within six months, it being renewed  for another year, within, another six months of   that. So three months into the new, newly renewed  contract, we were producing such results that we   were actually able to wrap that into core funding. 

eventually, that program that I designed became a   provincial standard for employer engagement  programs, through these types of agencies.

Your predecessor and her boss were a great example  of, if you set low standards and you don't create   the conditions that support high productivity,  you don't utilize fuel effectively and you don't,   provide good feedback, they will meet that  poor expectation with poor results versus when   your boss came in and hired you. She set high  expectations for you to achieve something. She   gave you the conditions and the support to do 

that. She properly utilized your skillsets and   gave you the feedback and the course corrections  you needed in order to achieve high performance.   And you even blew her expectations out of  the water. And that is what can happen with   a mindset shift. And by leveraging the pygmalion  effect, you can resurrect the dead in a sense.

performance management tools and programs. So   a lot of the work that we do when we go into  organizations going to help them with their   talent transformations is trying to build some  type of system that creates the kind of conditions   similar to what you experienced early on in your  career, but has been proven to improve portfolio  

performance. Leveraging the Pygmalion effect  and a lot of the ways we talk about that is a   really simple way we talk about it, in terms of  rules that empower, creating the benchmarks and   the goalposts and the expectations that let people  kind of hit those high peaks that, again, leverage   high expectations to turn into high performance.  And it's in, I think we have a program where  

we talk about that. and maybe it's called the  autonomy Freeway, and maybe we can do an episode   about that down the road because we're kind of  running low on time now. But I would like for us   to kind of just steer this Pygmalion effect, human  required rules that empower kind of, and talk   about it in terms of the more common realities of  remote teams and multiple location organizations.

guardrails earlier. so perform a really robust,   excellent, performance management system is  going to very clearly set the expectations of,   here's what you're expected, here are what your  responsibilities are, here's how we are going.   Defining success, in this role. And on one side,  that becomes your guardrail, on the other side,   it's. Here are the things that you can't do,  right. Here are the, don't cross these lines,  

these boundaries. But the, your opportunity to do  cool stuff rests in between those two guardrails   of expectations, clear definitions of success  and rules that empower. Setting the limits of,   as long as you're not doing x, y, and z, you're  good to go. Right. That framework becomes very,   very powerful motivational tool and performance  management tool, because you also need to temper,   that with regular check ins. Right. How are 

things going? We've set the expectations. We   know how we're going to measure, the success in  your job. So, on a, if you're managing a remote   team or people, who work from home, you're  probably going to want to do the check ins a   little more often, whether that's bi weekly,  to see. Okay, here's what we've stated is,   our metrics for success. How are you in achieving  those? Okay, what do you need from me as your   manager to make sure that you can achieve those 

goals bi weekly basis? 1520 minutes conversation.   Regular check ins can make all the difference  in the world. If you have these guard weight   guardrails in place that focus people's energies,  it's just again, it's one of those things that it   makes sense and should be common, but it's  not commonly applied. but we see this as a,   we not only see it, we have seen it in action 

with clients. We regularly see this in action   improving the way that managers, are able to  manage teams, whether that is multiple location,   whether that is work from home, and really improve  the overall performance of individuals, of teams,   and of organizations when this mentality  is taken and applied throughout a company.

Are you seeing it as a tool of control,   or are you seeing it as a tool for productivity?  That is kind of the foundation. First thing you   need to really be asking yourself when you're  trying to increase employee performance,   because how we view employee relations and HR  has a lot of impact on the way that we, again,   utilize systems to manage employee performance.  Are we trying to just hold people to a generic   standard of checking boxes by holding, having 

a holding red tape department? Are we just   trying to put out, fires and mitigate the problems  because we have a highly reactive department? Are   we trying to suppress people through a hovering  and restricting department? Or do we actually   have a humans required department? That is about  trying to achieve, optimal performance and optimal   productivity through investing in people and using 

people, and providing resources to humans. We need   to be more aware of looking into the Pygmalion  effect and the impact that higher expectations   can become a self fulfilling prophecy towards  higher performance if we have the conditions,   utilization, and feedback to get them there.  Ultimately, if you want to talk about improving   employee performance when it comes to remote  teams in multiple locations, we have to be  

prepared to manage differently. Look at rules  that empower, look at setting clear expectations,   set the guardrails that will help people kind of  achieve what they want. You know, what they need   to in order to optimize performance. But we have  to realize that this, a lot of this, this sounds   like a big change to you. Then going through,  seeing this as potential, a transformative  

process might be the reality of it. And those  things aren't necessarily quick, cheap, or easy,   but if you want to actually do something about  employee performance if they may be necessary.   All right, so that about does it for us. For  a full archive of the podcast and access to   the video version hosted on our YouTube channel,  visit www.roman3.ca/podcast thanks for joining us.