It’s Time to Rethink the Way Work Is Managed

In a column last week on government’s need for improved performance management practices, the Office of Personnel Management’s deputy associate director noted the challenges are becoming “exponentially more complex” and “global in nature.” Steve Shih is correct that “the answer lies in maintaining an engaged and valued workforce.”

He’s also correct that agencies need better performance practices. But, to use an old idiom, that is putting the cart before the horse. The needed changes are central to the organization and management of work.

Performance systems have been a problem because they’ve never been accepted by managers as valuable tools. Surveys have repeatedly confirmed that performance management is human resources’ most hated policy. That’s true in the private sector as well.

In hindsight, early systems were never intended to improve performance. Originally, the purpose was to confirm employee performance was acceptable and also, it’s often forgotten, to reduce the autocratic and sometimes arbitrary practices of managers. There was only superficial interest in improved performance or employee development until a decade or so ago. The systems were not discarded simply because there has been nothing better.

General Electric is one of several firms moving in a different direction. The new approach is intended to support and facilitate the role of managers in improving performance. In a company like GE employees are empowered to tackle problems. Managers are becoming coaches. The partnership between managers and their people has triggered a noteworthy jump in performance.

The approach would work best in an environment where workers are empowered and there is mutual trust with supervisors. When employees are reluctant to take the initiative or, worse, know their actions will be reprimanded, better performance is very unlikely. Improvement is not possible unless managers and employees are open to change.

At the heart of the problem is the way work is organized and managed in federal offices. There has been a reluctance to discard hierarchical, control-oriented practices. That was also true at GE until leaders decided change was needed. Comments about federal managers and employees being risk-averse are clearly not signs of a readiness to accept change. At the same time the GE approach would fit comfortably where employees work under loose supervision. That’s true in health care, for example. If leaders are uncertain, it would be instructive to ask employees whether they feel comfortable trying new approaches.

The central issue is the management of work. That is the subject of a new book, Why We Work by Barry Schwartz. It would be a win-win for everyone, including the public, if federal work reflected research on what “inspires,” a word used to describe GE’s new approach. Schwartz summarized those research findings in a recent column in The New York Times:

“We want work that is challenging and engaging, that enables us to exercise some discretion and control over what we do, and that provides us opportunities to learn and grow. We want work with colleagues we respect and with supervisors who respect us. Most of all, we want work that is meaningful — that makes a difference to other people and thus ennobles us in at least in some small way.”

Research also shows employees are willing to accept a lower salary for jobs like that. I would add that workers want to be treated fairly and recognized for their contribution.

OPM cannot solve the broader problem. Moreover, this is not a problem that a labor-management council will be able to solve. HR may be able to provide support, but this is a management problem. Actually it’s a problem that is to a degree unique for each manager.

Employees should know what they need to accomplish and the measures or criteria that will be used to evaluate their performance. They should also know what they need to accomplish to be rated as outstanding. Finally, they should know when their performance is going to be rated as unacceptable. In GE’s new “coaching” model, managers hold regular “touchpoint” conversations with their staff to discuss progress, offer advice and, if warranted, revise expectations. There should be no year-end rating surprises.

A common flaw in older performance systems was requiring the use of the same performance criteria for diverse job families. That’s analogous to using the same test for history, math and science. It definitely does not facilitate performance conversations. The practice originated in the early factories. Focusing on performance issues specific to a job family makes the coaching discussions easier and more productive.

There is nothing preventing agencies from rethinking the management of performance. However, this is far more complex than installing a new information technology system. Success here depends on individual managers. The GE approach focuses on new supervisory skills. It’s working relationships with staff that creates a work experience like the one described by Schwartz. The “system” is not the solution, although it can and should facilitate those coaching discussions.

Agencies will need to decide if they are ready to invest in improving performance. The direct cost would be nominal, but to date it’s never been a priority. To secure the buy-in of managers, they need to take the lead in the planning. We know what’s necessary.

Agencies need to start with a blank slate. A suggestion is to start with demos to rethink the way work is managed. Performance systems should make the job of managing easier.

(Image via sergign/Shutterstock.com)