The media today are filled with many stories about jobs. I am struck by the fact that there are few references to job performance. Sometimes the term productivity is broadly used to suggest optimal performance but with little detail. All jobs are made up of key tasks that must be performed to a specified standard.
When these standards are met consistently; the organization, its customers and workers should prosper.
In the course of working with executives and managers, I found that key tasks are not clearly understood and consequently, performance standards are not well articulated. This becomes a major issue in job evaluations, performance management and employee engagement. When asked about recurring performance problems, very few managers were able to describe the discrepancy between the actual performance and that required by the standard.
Imagine being an employer or a customer, needing some important task done in order to achieve a higher goal. For whatever reason, (time, expertise, volume to work, etc.) you must select someone to perform this task. How would you decide who to select and how they should be compensated?
Many lay emphasis on “qualifications” such as training, degrees and experience. While these “ability” elements are important, motivational factors such as confidence, willingness and morale play a prime role in effective performance.
A person who is enthusiastic but has never done the task might actually perform better than someone who has done it many times but is bored with the task. Our research and experience also show that the cultural environment of the organization has a significant effect on performance.
From the worker perspective, nothing drives down motivation and confidence faster that uncertainty about what constitutes a good performance. In our work, we frequently encounter employees who were excited about a new job or task, only to have it “beaten out” of them by manager/leaders whose styles are not developmental.
Let’s not forget that the ultimate purpose for the leader/employee relationship is “task ownership”; when the employee is able to assume the “lion’s share” for completing the task in accordance with the performance standard.
For example, if the task is assigned to someone who has not done it before but is willing to try their performance readiness will be low in ability but high in motivation. If the leader’s approach is to stress the importance of being motivated but throws the person in to “sink or swim” that motivation will evaporate and be difficult to regain.
We regularly do assessments of persons who have worked in organizational cultures where the boss makes the ultimate decisions about everything, even to how tasks are to be carried out. Over time, persons in that environment stop trying to make improvements, do not accept accountability for any outcomes and begin to delegate upwards, leaving the boss drowning in minutia.
Since Caribbean workers seem to have gravitated toward positions that don’t carry the responsibility of defining standards and assessing performance readiness, we are saddled with cumbersome bureaucracies. So often, if one person is absent, the task comes to a standstill. Performance appraisals seldom pinpoint performance against standards, so they are suspect.
People are rewarded for simply being present, pleasant and compliant. This also makes it extremely difficult to “send people home” because of poor performance. The true cost is measured in much more than money.