Life-Giving Performance Reviews: Expressing The Middle Issues

All human environments that are worth anything choose to self reflect. Self-reflection always makes us better and always helps us transcend our ingrained bad habits.  Show me somebody who refuses evaluate, and I will see—beyond their foundational nobility—stunted immaturity.  When I hear of organizations who fail to evaluate their employees, without a strategy, it makes me feel pity and cringe a little. What’s even worse though than no self reflection? Doing it badly.

I once sat in a review session for an organization I lightly worked for during my PhD.  It was clear that these superiors had little idea how to win my loyalty. Not only did they hammer me with their off-base judgements, they actually told me—apparently from some surprising anti-intellectual perspective—that though I was appreciated by the company, it was “acceptable you are finishing your PhD”. That’s the day when that position died.

Do reviews; but do them in a way that breathes life into the human you employ.

First, set up a rhythm and clear expectations. I schedule six month reviews with every person I lead formally— no matter how big or small their role. I say to all who enter into a formal relationship with me that we will use these reviews to see if our expectations are on course and to share “medium-sized concerns.”

What are medium-sized concerns? “If you have a big problem with me or your job”, I say, “tell me yesterday”.  “If you have something small that we need to address.  Tell me tomorrow.”  But those in-between issues, those half-way endearing quirks of your job, can grow much bigger or smaller depending on how you handle them. If you share medium-sized issues too quickly, they  appear larger than they should. Examples: the way you forget to let me know sometimes that our weekly meeting is postponed, the ways that you forget to clean up after yourself in the kitchen, your recalcitrance to anything new.  These all annoy me but not that much. If I said something, it would only get blown out of proportion. That’s why we tend not to share medium issues with one another. And yet do not underestimate the medium-sized problems; they don’t go away. They endure. So write them down and save them up for a six-month review session prepared for the safe sharing of medium-sized stuff.

Finally during your well-cherished six-month review, the superior should always ask for their employee to self-review first.  Most people know exactly what issues they carry into their work and are eager to beat you to the punch. Let them. It will save you a lot of heartache.  As the reviewer, your job first is to listen well, take notes, and reflectively listen.  Very often you will find that your list of medium-sized issues gets mostly covered. If your employee cannot self reflect, teach them to and reschedule your meeting for next week. If they come back empty handed, it’s time to let them go.

After your employee successfully self reflects, you may have a few more things to say you’re your employee may not be able to see about themselves, but what you have now is their own language to help you explain some of your own-medium sized issues with your employee.  Always spring-board off of what they have already shared. There’s nothing better as an employer than to discover that your employee understands their significant issues already. And always invite your employee to review you through your superior—not to your face, not with medium-sized issues. You can let them know that if they have any issues with you that you want them to tell you supervisor. You want to get better yourself. If you have no supervisor, you are dictator. You need a supervisor.

You can find a few good tools online to help you get started reviewing a human in a life-giving way, but the easiest way is to start with a few key questions.

• What are you loving about your role?
• What do you find yourself growing weary with?
• And what do you think about your growth edges?

Be a part of a people who self-reflect regularly. And do it with class.

The Human and Their Heart

Humans are first and foremost full of heart. We are more than our bodies and personalities. More than our family of origin.  More than our opinions and beliefs.  We are creatures of habit who love and relate and sometimes show a staggering sense of courage.

This means that we are predictable yet defy rote categorization.

We are set in our ways and worldviews, yet crises often reshape us––often for the better.

We are task oriented, full of projects, and annoying traits; and we all wrestle with underpinning desires.

We are never the same, always changing, for better or worse; and yet if our mental capacities get compromised, we have a flair of us-ness that warms the hearts of those who love us.

In leadership we must always remember that humans cannot be diminished into tools. Humans have no operation system.  No code.  No batteries.  They have hearts.

And leaders must treat humans as if they have hearts.

1. While personality tools help us respect propensities, if you treat an individual human as a type, you’ve already objectified them. Get to know your people’s propensities, but also expect them to surprise you.
2. Before you reprimand someone for failing a task, ask: what’s happening in their heart.
3. In fact, when it comes to any creature with a heart–if they can speak–it’s always good to enter conflict with questions.  “Tell me; what happened there?”
4. We must learn to see human failures as opportunities for formation: sometimes people need to be formed in the fires of losing their job; much of the time though people need the chance to grow and learn.
5. If projects are more important than your people and their growth, you only help a dying world keep dying—at best.
6. If you cannot revere a person who works for you, you cannot hope to lead them well.
7. Revering means seeing through unlovely attributes, annoying traits and into the hidden nobility of a person.
8. Hidden nobility blooms in small interests, important symbols, and things that make people smile.
9. If your follower recognizes that you see their hidden nobility, you are 9/10ths of the way to gaining loyalty and trust.

 

Other thoughts? What are the implications of leading creatures with a heart?

Hands OFF

I once initiated a new intern by fire, teaching him about delegation during his first stint as a leader.

I wanted him to build a pallet wall, the backdrop for a future art commission. Told him it would be a good way to get some skin in the game AND teach him about delegating.  I instructed him to delegate as much work as possible––he would do as little of hand’s on work as he could but also he should be as present with his team as much as possible. I wanted to burn out any tendency from his young imagination to micromanage people.

Though the task took him two months longer than I expected, he learned from the start to manage volunteers, when to let them flounder, and when simply to get the project done yourself.

This, to me, is the first test of a leader: can they simultaneously orchestrate, inspire, AND know when to engage and disengage. You can teach this skill, but for some it’s just there as raw talent in their young sensibilities. Here are some observations:

• Golden rule: if they can do it 80% as well, delegate it.
• People need purpose. If you are doing all of the grunt work, you are not leading; you are stealing.
• A leader only engages in hands on work when they sense the tipping point: from team distress to loss of morale. Leader’s need to train their eye for this crucial turning of morale.
• A leader can eye the consequence of failure; she knows when failure will serve to inspire and when failure will crush.

First rule of leadership: Don’t do it all. But stay present with your people.