Performance Punishment

Perhaps I should be used to this by now. After all, it started in first grade, when Mrs. Wycoff assigned us to reading groups labeled Bluebirds, Robins, or-heaven forbid-Sparrows. Then, as now, appraisal was deemed necessary to guide our development. But I still don't understand how calling someone a Robin is supposed to help him or her read like a Bluebird.

One might question the very concept of "performance management." The phrase reminds me of a physician I know who likes to talk about "managing the disease." Unfortunately, the disease doesn't always get the message. But performance management, whether grand illusion or genuine possibility, is enshrined in federal code. Our agencies are required by law to have performance management programs. Can performance be managed? The definition of management includes control. It's often observed that managers control the base level of performance, but employees determine what the upper limits will be. Performance systems that emphasize control can undermine rather than contribute to optimum performance.

According to management guru Douglas McGregor, measurement of individual performance started as a means of control. So today, enlightened managers who genuinely want to use appraisals to guide improvement are hampered by the negative experience embedded in our collective psyche. We all know that beneath the pretty language of development lurks a threat to our livelihood and self-esteem. That's why many supervisors, especially those without sadistic tendencies, dislike the appraisal interview as much as we do.

U.S. Code requires that we get a performance "rating of record" that is based on critical elements and performance standards. Interestingly, I could not find the words "objective" and "measurable" in the code; therefore, subjective and unmeasurable standards must be OK. Frankly, I would not raise a fuss about a performance plan that is subjective and unmeasurable: The day your job can be codified, rationalized and arranged in measurable parts is the day you can be replaced by a computer. With the triumph of artificial intelligence and efficiency, that day will come for us all, but what's the hurry?

Fred Nichols, a management consultant, makes an interesting point about measurability and appraisal. If performance were truly measurable and measured, what could the appraisal interview tell us that we don't already know? And if performance is not measurable and measured, then the appraisal process is really about power.

Nichols recommends that government agencies scrap their performance appraisal systems. This is against federal law, but chances are the system used by your agency could be vastly improved. The Code of Federal Regulations-see 5 CFR part 430-allows great flexibility. Under these regulations, agencies may use systems that have anywhere from two to five levels for the summary rating. A two-level system is commonly referred to as "pass/fail"; my agency continues to use the old five-level method, perhaps to maximize fear and suffering. Agencies are required to provide employees with performance plans that include "at least one critical element and any non-critical element(s)." Furthermore, the rules require that "a performance standard shall be established at the 'fully successful' level and may be established at other levels." Forgive me for noticing, but this seems to say if an agency agrees with Nichols that performance appraisal is far more costly and destructive than it's worth, the agency could issue each employee one element with one standard and be done with it.

There is another golden nugget tucked into the federal code. Section 430.208 states, "The method of deriving and assigning a summary level may not limit or require the use of particular summary levels (i.e., establish a forced distribution of summary levels.)" In other words, agencies are forbidden from apportioning ratings. And all these years we thought there were quotas! Your manager could not possibly have said, "Our division is allowed only three 'outstanding' ratings and I don't have one for you."

It is appraisal as practiced, not accountability, that I object to. I never forget that my salary is paid by bus drivers and sales clerks. We owe them accountability. But agencies and individuals can be accountable for results without a demeaning, damaging process. In A Handbook for Measuring Employee Performance, the Office of Personnel Management provides tips on linking individual performance plans to agency goals set under the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act. Nothing in the OPM handbook requires a process that demeans employees.

In a previous assignment, I experienced a reasonable appraisal program. The managers at this federal agency were converted to the views of W. Edwards Deming. It was Deming who said there are so many systemic factors affecting performance that are beyond the control of individuals, that an "employee of the month" award is a lottery. Employees affect but are also affected by the organization's systems and biases of managers.

In Deming's view, the only honest appraisal is to ask whether an individual is performing within or outside an organization's established system of work. Deming found that about 94 percent of employees fall within the system; they must work together to move the entire organization to a higher level of performance. About 6 percent of employees fall outside the system: Three percent are truly superior performers, whose contributions rise above the normal bounds of the organization. At the opposite end of the curve are 3 percent who perform poorly despite the system's attempts to keep them in line. Coincidentally, an OPM study published in 1999 says 3.7 percent of federal workers are poor performers.

When I worked under the Deming approach, my annual appraisal consisted of a supervisor telling me I was performing "within the system" and then discussing how we could work together to improve results. Although I had occasionally received "outstanding" ratings in the past, it was a relief to simply not worry about it. The only people for whom the appraisal process remained onerous were the 3 percent who were poor performers.

My current organization doesn't favor Deming's approach. Our managers do not subscribe to the notion that "employee of the month" is a lottery or that most rank-and-file employees would perform better if the system would let them. They subscribe to the heroic, individualistic theory of performance. I was reminded of this recently when one of our divisions met critical performance goals. The division manager got a $5,000 bonus (it's supposed to be a secret) and the employees got a free slice of pizza.

I have to go now. It's time for my appraisal. My supervisor won't brook any appeals based on Nichols and McGregor, on Deming's statistical models or on Robins and Bluebirds. He will be interested in just one question: Have I performed according to my performance plan? Well, not completely. I have performed "within the system" but that won't save me. I think I'm about to become a Sparrow.