Do You Need A Compensation Consultant?Do You Need A Compensation Consultant? The time will come when you find yourself between a rock and a hard place at work.  Your ability to produce project deliverables will be challenged by staff shortages, multiple projects simultaneously...

Read more

Do You Value Your Customer-Facing Jobs?Do You Value Your Customer-Facing Jobs? Have you ever walked out of a store because of poor customer service?  Or felt frustrated because the company representative at the other end of the phone did not seem to care?  Or after enduring a bad...

Read more

Why Managers Don't Manage PayWhy Managers Don't Manage Pay When an employee is promoted to their first manager’s position, they are given the proverbial Keys to the Kingdom – your company.  They now have the authority to spend your company’s money.  From...

Read more

Is Performance Still Important?

Posted by Chuck Csizmar | Posted in Articles, Universal Compensation | Posted on 15-04-2010

Tags: , , , ,

6

Have you ever watched and wondered how it is that some employees in your organization are recognized and moved upward, while others with more impressive credentials, experience and achievements seem to stagnate – and then eventually move out?

There’s a reason for that counter-intuitive phenomenon; you may have within your management ranks a form of “star chamber” or informal clique that anoints some employees (the chosen ones) while sidelining others.  Which explains why leadership mediocrity is sometimes overlooked, why personality trumps achievement and better qualified employees can be passed over for promotion.  For the select few, middle-of-the-road performance is not a barrier to success – like it is for the rest of us.

Not exactly what you hear in Management 101 training class is it?

What you are witnessing is an evolution of the informal pass-fail rating system that companies have used for generations to decide whether an employee is “one of us”.  Those deemed worthy receive a “get out of jail card” that boosts their career.  Those lacking sponsors are categorized as having questionable value and are liable to suffer a fall at the next organizational bump in the road.

Do you remember the “in crowd” from your high school days?  You may not have escaped them after all.

It’s all about PIE

Psychologists have identified several human factors that describe an employee’s ability to relate to their work environment.  While each may vary in importance from one organization to another, their combination has a critical impact on an employee’s likelihood for success.

Performance: your demonstrated ability to perform the job you were hired for.  How well do you handle your role?  Do you achieve results?  The rating scale is the traditional range of from wonderful to woeful.

Image: do you “fit” within the organization?  Is the image you project (personality, interests, clothing, demeanor, etc.) accepted by the rest of Management?  This rating scale ranges from “one of us” to “one of them”.

Exposure: to what extent are you known or would be recognized in the hallways by senior management?  Who are you rubbing shoulders with?  Here the rating scale ranges from “You are known” to “Who?”

The Way it Was

It wasn’t that long ago that Performance was King; that no matter what eccentricities you brought to the job, as long as you performed well no one bothered you.  Idiosyncrasies and personality quirks were overlooked; “oh, that’s just Bob”, you would be told.  “Don’t mind him.  Just deal with it.”  Your value was measured by getting the job done.

Management training classes would use a “scruffy-looking dude” as an example of a brilliant engineer buried beneath a beard, long hair and mismatched clothes.  Such employees possessed little in the way of social skills, no interest in office politics or traditional business hours, and never wore the company logo.  Their job performance, their contribution to the business was their defining identifier.  It marked them as a valuable human resource.

Image could be important, but was considered more as icing on the cake, not the critical ingredient.  Exposure was even less important, as long as you performed.  “Being seen” was more for those who lacked a strong performance record.  They were the ones who needed the help and support of others.

Btw, the classroom answer?  Treat each “dude” the same as you would anyone else.

The Way It Is

Today, good performance is not enough to ensure success.  Today you must also be a “player”.  You must be able to fit in, to blend with your other playmates, be liked as a person, adroitly play at office politics, be seen with the right people and have the same outside interests.  Your capabilities should not be a challenge to your boss.  How you dress is scrutinized for the image you present.

Of course, if you don’t perform well and you’re not in with the right group, your career with that firm will suffer.  You will shrivel on the vine, if not ultimately chopped off.  However, if you are considered to be in with the right group, that association will step in to help should your performance leave something to be desired.  This assistance can vary from softening the blow to overlooking shortcomings (accusations never stick) to shooting the messenger on your behalf.  Club mates stick together.  They circle the wagons when attacked.  They get even.

What to do?

Sound fair?  That’s the way it is when Performance is valued less than Image and Exposure.  But does that strategy have legs?  I don’t think so.  Leadership and a cadre of high performing people are critical requirements to drive your business forward.  You need such outwardly focused success drivers, not those more concerned about internal group dynamics.

Should you find yourself working for an organization where your personal interests and hobbies are valued more than performance and results, your options will be limited.

  • You can try to re-invent yourself according to someone else’s value system, but how much success will you have?
  • You can try to stay under the radar screen, lest you be judged – but that doesn’t seem a good career plan, does it?
  • You can try to change the culture.  Good luck with that!
  • Or you can leave

If you believe that your job performance is your best calling card, that employees should be measured and weighed by their contributions, you may need to reconsider the long term prospects of your current environment.

Leave the mediocrity behind.  Change can be a good thing.

Comments (6)

Great article!

I agree that the Peter Principle (employees are promoted to their level of incompetence as long as they meet performance standards) way of thinking is an outdated way to think about career progression.

In the age of downsizing, streamlined processes, team collaboration and networking; employees are expected to be a total package (well rounded, team player, proactive, engaging & performance oriented).

Chuck this is excellent; it makes me shudder to think that the number of Facebook friends or Twitter followers you have can be the basis of promotions and raises. The problem is that some organizations pretend to be performance-driven but in fact their cultures embrace this high school mentality. I know this from having surveyed many of them and seeing the rampant favoritism reported back. This is an issue of morale because morale is eroded by such activity. Organizations need these gems sitting somewhere who are socially less than stellar but add hugely to the mission with their knowledge and skills and dedication. In turn, erosion of morale has a huge effect on overall organizational performance.

The solution is to go back and re-state core values such as “performance is the bedrock of our culture”; then to weed out anything which goes against this, wherever it is. The socially clever but performance challenged will scream but that is a small price to pay for the benefits. Of course this must be genuine and not just window dressing while the old system is preserved in the background.

This is an issue of fairness, which in turn underlies every strong, high morale and engagement organization. Imagine a football game whose result depended on which referee or line judge the players knew and socialized with, or who was the most popular player among those judges/referees? No one would go. Everything in football, including no less than 7 enforcement personnel, is designed to make performance the ONLY factor which determines the game’s result. We deserve such meritocracy in our organizational life.

David
http://www.moraleatwork.com

Outstanding article. I had written something similar entitled: “When Politics Trumps Performance”. I like your PIE acronym but would probably call it PPIE and add Politics to the equation. We all understand that Politics, Image and Exposure are necessary but when they far outweigh Performance, an organization greatly suffers. Even with good goal setting and Pay for Performance as the touted methodology, politics can certainly impact how the alleged performance is viewed.

Thanks for your comment, Lucie. I find the topic of personality over performance fascinating, especially now that I’ve left the corporate world for my own consulting business. Call me from the old school, but I’ve always focused on getting the job done and doing the best I could. To find yourself somehow out of “favor” because (in my case) I didn’t play golf, and I didn’t enjoy Las Vegas or Atlantic City gambling was a stunning development. A real eye opener, so to speak .

It’s been interesting the number of comments I’ve received from others who either found themselves either in the “out crowd” or who knew high performers that fell afoul of the company’s personality subculture.

Thanks for the comment, Tonya. I’ve heard from a number of folks who have experienced similar frustrations – where high job performance just isn’t enough any more. Granted, there may be some sour grapes mixed in there (there must be an insidious reason for Bob or Mary getting promoted over me), but the overall trend is discouraging. Another consideration is that similarly weak performers could be the ones making these career decisions – and they don’t want to elevate competitors. So many angles .

Thanks for commenting David, and you made several good points. My concern with the “go back and re-state” process is that all too often there are foxes in the chicken coup. The senior managers making these personality decisions are those who benefit themselves from the decisions. Like building the proverbial “yes men” team, poor leaders are reluctant to surround themselves with strong talent – for fear that their own inadequacies would be discovered. Under the subjective banner of “fit” they often promote same-style employee who in turn feel they “owe” their positions to their new mentors.

Yes, I’m probably painting too dark (or at least too cynical) a picture, but I think we need to appreciate the seriousness of the problem before we can truly effect a cure. Often times Senior management is part of the problem – especially for companies who seem to be doing well in spite of themselves (location, patents, everybody want one, etc.).

Thanks again. You’ve made me think deeper on the subject.

Write a comment

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree