Last post I claimed that humans live in different realities. It’s not just a particular event, like a basketball game, or perceptions of a particular person, like a boss. EVERYTHING we experience differs from another person’s reality because each person has lived through a completely unique blend of life experiences: family dynamics, education, religion, ethnic traditions, economic status, and the myriad situations and emotions we encountered. Given the infinite array of experiences we have each encountered, it’s not surprising that there are so many interpersonal conflicts.
Let’s look at a typical example. A client of mine was promoted to sales manager and was preparing to give a veteran employee a performance evaluation. The manager’s assessment was that sales rep had some strengths but seemed complacent, even below standards in some areas. Weekly reports were often late and sloppy. The boss was not confident the employee was a good fit. Past reviews had been acceptable, with little data.
Prior to the performance review meeting, he asked the sales rep for a self-appraisal, and was shocked by what he read: a totally different reality. The rep wrote that she was doing very well, was on track to achieving her sales goals, and received lots of positive feedback from her clients and colleagues. She rated herself “above expectations.”
Uh-oh. Talk about clash of realities.
Fortunately, my client was well positioned for the performance conversation. With the aid of foresight (and brilliant coaching!) he had done what I call building a conversational bridge between his reality and those of his direct reports.
The first step in building that bridge happed in his first days on the job, when he met with each rep to share and discuss mutual thoughts and feelings on roles, goals and expectations.
The next bridge-building step was regular, often short, conversations between manager and employee. For the boss, these conversations included both positive reinforcement and constructive, corrective suggestions and advice. For the employee it was an opportunity to share triumphs and challenges, ask questions, and ask for support. Good bridges work equally well in both directions.
This manager has a tendency to accentuate the positive and downplay the negative. Frankly, if you are to err one way or the other, I would rather have a manager err on the positive. But he had not completely ignored constructive feedback, and had done so both verbally and in writing. Unfortunately, the rep had somehow blocked out or diminished the negative feedback, hence their different perspectives.
Finally, and most important, the notion of “bridge” here is that there are two sides and BOTH are important. Translated to management, a good boss will ask for and listen attentively to the employee’s perspective on progress, challenges, likes and dislikes. This is why it is valuable to ask for an employee’s self-appraisal before the formal session. Knowing how the employee views their own performance gives advance warnings of the areas of connection and disconnection. It is also possible that the employee has a more powerful or accurate interpretation of her performance. After all, the employee has spent about 100% of her time with herself, while the boss has spent only a fraction.
Armed with the employee’s self-assessment, my client looked in the mirror and asked himself if he was being fair and consistent in his expectations, whether he had communicated feedback appropriately, and whether there were any perspectives from the rep that should cause him to re-evaluate. He concluded that his case was pretty strong, but because the rep was seasoned, he wanted to explore her viewpoint further.
Building a bridge is not the sole domain of the boss. Although most employees abdicate responsibility for performance assessments – unless forced by the system – it is far more powerful for them to hold up their part of the bridge. I encourage my clients to ask for regular feedback, from their boss, peers, direct reports and customers.
So how did the performance meeting turn out? Well, the conversation was difficult. When it became clear to the rep that the boss had a VERY different assessment than her own, she expressed both anger and tears. Because he knew that the conversation might go this way, my client was prepared to call a short break, allow the rep to regain composure, and then expressed genuine desire to turn the situation around. Sensing he was genuine, the rep opened up and said that many of her behaviors had been encouraged by the former boss and that perhaps she had not made a strong enough effort to adapt to different expectations from her new boss. The manager countered by saying there might be things he could do differently. They worked out a few ideas and agreed to speak weekly until they felt things had turned around. A year later, the employee was rated among the best in her region.
Strong bridges do not guarantee that every performance problem will be resolved in such a positive way. Sometimes, it is actually better for the organization and all involved that the parties part company. And if parting is the outcome, strong bridges will usually keep such separations from turning ugly.
