“Don’t hold anyone to an expectation unless you have stated to them what that expectation is.”
Guess who said that? My mom.
It is probably one of her best because it applies in nearly every aspect of life. She typically offered this gem within the context of relationships. It usually involved me complaining about a roommate or a boyfriend because they weren’t doing something I wanted them to do. She almost always followed that complaint with “Well, do they know what you’re expecting?”
My lack of maturity boiled over with “They should just know. It’s common sense.” Or “I shouldn’t have to ask. I want them to want to do the dishes.”
I now know well that common sense is relative and who wants to do the dishes?
Being clear on expectations is not only important in relationships but it is also a foundational component leadership and one of the toughest aspects of leading a team is discussing performance.
The conversations are tough because often they are reserved for only talking about poor performance or when someone has missed the mark. The good news is that these awkward discussions can be avoided entirely but employing three simple techniques.
This week we look at clear expectations, routine check-ins, and self-evaluations.
Achieving high performance is largely based on clear expectations. For a short time, I was a Human Resources Generalist responsible for counseling managers on employee relations issues. Frequently, I would get this call: “I need to put Jan on corrective action. She isn’t performing, hasn’t been for a while, and she needs to be disciplined. What do I do?”
I channeled my mom. “Tell me about how you set performance expectations for Jan and what is Jan’s understanding of what is expected of her?”
Often, I found it was not a disciplinary issue at all, rather a miscommunication of expectations.
Way before there is a need to give any sort of corrective feedback there needs to be a discussion of expectations. Ideally, this happens within the first 30 days of starting a new job and continues throughout the work experience. It is not enough to assume that everyone knows what is expected of them based on the job description.
In the beginning, it is important to be explicit. I wrote about being Captain Obvious and it means to leave no room for assumptions. For example, if you expect every meeting your team organizes starts and ends on time, has an agenda, and includes a note-taker, then say that. While running a meeting like this may be "common sense" for some, it likely will not be for all.
To ensure that performance kicks off in the right direction and to reduce the need for uncomfortable corrective feedback, be explicit with expectations from the start.
Routine and expected check-ins
Once expectations are clearly set, they must be revisited regularly. There are so many benefits to routine check-ins, it is no wonder they are a leadership best practice.
This is not a leadership “drive-by” when the boss stops by your desk or texts you “How’s everything going?” While this can be valuable, most people need time to think about what is most important to address with their boss. The “drive-by” does not allow for that.
Rather, this is scheduled time dedicated to the boss and employee discussing what is going well, what is not, and any support that may be needed. Performance will naturally weave its way into the conversations.
There is no specific timing recommended, it will depend on the team and their needs. As an Operations Chief, I had 17 direct reports. I met monthly with 7 of them. I met twice a month with 6, and weekly with the remaining 4. This was driven by the tenure of the employee (new employees I met with more frequently) as well as the type of work performed. The responsibility was on the direct report to schedule these and ensure the meetings were on calendar. I did not spend any time scheduling check-ins for 17 people nor do I recommend any leader do that.
As a leader, the greatest benefit of having these meetings is the annual performance review was a breeze. Because we met routinely, I didn’t have to wrack my brain or scour past emails to remember successes and I never dreaded giving corrective feedback in a review because it had already been addressed in a past check-in.
Discussion of performance is not a once in while conversation. Rather, it is a routine activity centered on expectations.
About 15 years ago I worked on a high-performing learning and development team. We routinely practiced our training delivery and facilitation skills in front of the team. We assessed everything from gestures and vocal tone to how to foster valuable discussions amongst participants. Our boss was (still is) an expert public speaker and learning facilitator. She held us all to a high expectation. I was more nervous to deliver training in front of her and my peers than any other leader, even executive, at the company.
Even though I was nervous, there was a comforting aspect to the activity. At the conclusion of our delivery, we evaluated ourselves first. Our boss called it “P’s and C’s”. We would first share our “positives” and then share our personal “critiques.” The exercise was so valuable because it challenged us to recognize our strengths and what we do well. Then, we were able to critique ourselves before anyone else shared feedback. Often, I knew when I wasn’t my best and was able to address it before anyone else did. This put the power of continuous improvement in my own hands. Then, the team offered P’s & C’s as well. Because I had already evaluated myself first, it took the threat out of everyone else’s critique. Sometimes, the team picked up on something I wasn’t aware of and when that was shared, I was listening. I was more open to their feedback after having critiqued myself first.
Back then, I didn’t know there was neuroscience to back-up why self-evaluations are an effective approach for performance discussions.
David Rock of the NeuroLeadership Institute published the SCARF Model: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. In short, it describes an approach for collaborating with others while leveraging our brain’s natural approach/avoid response. This occurs within the context of the fight or flight response. When we have positive interactions, it triggers our brain to initiate an approach response. We want to continue to be a part of positive interactions. When we have negative exchanges, the opposite occurs. We want to avoid.
To no surprise, performance evaluations trigger an avoid response. It is inherently threatening to hear someone’s evaluation of us. It compromises how we see our status as a professional. We all view our work as an integral part of our status on the team. David Rock writes “If leaders want to change others’ behavior, more attention must be paid to reducing status threats when giving feedback. One way to do this is by allowing people to give themselves feedback on their own performance.”
To increase the chances of having a productive performance discussion, start with a self-evaluation.
By having clear expectations, routine check-ins, and self-evaluations, performance discussions become a lot less threatening and certainly less awkward. You do not need to be the boss either to institute these activities. Apply these strategies to teamwork and you will build better relationships but also get better results.
If you haven’t already, subscribe to the blog at the top of the page to get an email when each post is published.
Until next time!
Amy Drader is a management consultant and credentialed coach with over 20 years’ experience. She knows first-hand the joys and challenges of leadership and is dedicated to helping managers and teams advance their performance. She is the owner of Growth Partners Consulting, a boutique leadership and team development consulting firm.