Engineering Employee Engagement

How managers can use PAF Feedback to acheive it

Summary

Many managers tend to think that they are at the mercy of their employees. They think that if they are lucky enough to have good ones, fine. If not, there is not too much they can do about it. In fact, how motivated and engaged the vast majority of employees will be is much more likely to be a function of how they are managed. In other words, the degree to which employees feel engaged and motivated is more likely to be because of managerial actions rather than in spite of them.

This article explains how managers who give the right kind of performance-related feedback, with the right employees, at the right times, can actively increase employee motivation levels and productivity, while building improved relationships.

Using PAF to improve engagement: The greatest potential lies in the acceptable performer

All the studies on engagement tend to have similar findings - roughly:

·    10% - 20% of employees are highly engaged (the top performers)

·    10% - 20% of employees completely disengaged (about 5% of those are chronic poor performers)

·    60% - 80% of employees fall somewhere in between and are moderately engaged at best (acceptable employees)

For a detailed explanation see Article 3: The  Correlation between employee motivation and engagement and  performance-related feedback.    

The main difference between managers who manage to get superior performance from their employees and managers who do not is not just how they deal with the 10% of employees at either end of the continuum (although this may contribute to their success). Rather the main difference is attributable to how they manage the performance of the majority of employees in the middle.

Typical Managerial Mistake: Looking for superior productivity and engagement in al the wrong places

Most managers are so busy with doing all the other things necessary to get the job done that actively managing performance is often relegated to trying to fix poor performance. In other words, they tend to focus on performance primarily when it is a problem. The more serious the problem, the higher the priority for dealing with it becomes.

Enter the chronic poor performer.  While the number of these employees in any given work group is usually very small they tend to take up an inordinately disproportionate amount of limited and precious “performance management” time. Most managers can relate to the frustration of expending a lot of time and effort in actively trying get this small group to meet even minimum performance standards. On the other hand, managers will typically also have a few star performers that balance out the bad apples. With their natural ability and self-motivation it is easy for them to spend the remainder of that limited time to manage their superior performance.

This leaves very little time left over for the vast majority of employees that fall between these two extremes – the so-called acceptable performers. Because the performance of these employees is generally average (albeit to a greater or lesser extent) and because they tend not to give much grief, most managers have a tendency to leave them alone in order to “get on with it”. 

In direct contrast to the chronic poor performers and the higher performers then, managers rarely actively manage their performance. Rather, they tend to leave them alone to “get on with it”.

Improving the Performance of the Chronic Poor Performer

While bringing chronic poor performance up to minimum standards is a worthy goal for many reasons, it is not a particularly effective method/strategy for achieving significant gains in departmental productivity.

This is because chronic poor performers are generally either incapable of doing the job (lack the skills and/or ability even after adequate training), or are so demotivated and/or demoralized (lack the motivation) that they retaliate against their managers and the organization with deliberate poor performance. In either case, trying to increase overall productivity by attempting to improve their performance is relatively ineffective.

It is ALSO extremely time consuming, frustrating and difficult (and, in some cases, even futile) to do.

Even if it was possible to get these employees to do the bare minimum because they typically represent such a small percentage of the overall population the productivity gains associated with doing so would not significantly affect the bottom line.

Improving the Performance of the High Performer

Similarly, trying to get better performance from the equally small group of high performers is equally ineffective as a method of bringing about huge gains in productivity. Trying to push these employees even further may bring marginal improvements in overall productivity (since they are already performing at peak levels) but the cost to their personal and professional lives may come at too high a price.

Why the Potential for Superior Productivity Lies in the Acceptable Performer

The way to achieve superior productivity lies in focusing time and energy on increasing the performance and engagement levels of the large group of employees who fall in between the two extremes because these employees have the “room” to improve for two main reasons:

1.  They are generally capable of performing at higher levels.

2.  They are willing to work harder provided their managers know how to tap into their motivation to do so.

As the normal distribution graph below shows, even small performance increases in such a large group has a big effect on overall engagement and resulting performance and productivity because it shifts the “average” to a higher level.

Skewed Performance Distribution Resulting from Improved  Engagement Levels

One key way that exceptional managers improve engagement and productivity

The quality of the manager/employee relationship is critical in determining how satisfied and motivated employees will be (i.e., it has a direct effect on employee engagement levels). Managers have a far greater impact on employee motivation than they tend to realize.

A key element of the success of that relationship is the degree to which managers care about and take an interest in their employees. The most important way they demonstrate this is in the amount of time and effort they expend in actively helping their employees to be successful in their work.

For a detailed explanation see Articles: Correlation between engagement and feedback  and How can I motivate my employees.

From “bright-eyed and bushy-tailed” to “going through the motions”

Think about your first job – or any new job that you looked forward to starting. What was uppermost in your mind? Was it any of the following: “doing a good job”, “pleasing my manager”, “getting recognized for my contribution”, “enjoying myself”, “showing that I deserved the job”, “earning the respect of my boss and co-workers, etc. for doing well”, “hoping to demonstrate that I could be promoted”?

Did these thoughts motivate you to work hard? If you lost your motivation along the way, whatwere the reasons? How long did it take? Was the drop off due to your own ability or was it a reaction to how you were managed?

If your motivation and performance levels have ever changed depending on the person managing you then (assuming it was the same kind of job) it is unlikely that your talents and ability to perform changed - you remained the same person after all. More likely, the change was more of a conscious or unconscious reaction to the person managing you. Your attitude and motivation levels were directly influenced by your  supervisor.

This ties in perfectly with what psychological theory has to say about human motivation. The most important element boils down to the critical nature of self-esteem and having a high sense of self-worth. In the work context, this comes directly from doing well in the job.

In the work context, employees cannot build a sense of self-worth if they don’t experience initial success on the job. This is why it is so important for managers to engineer good performance to begin with – it is the only sure-fire way to start the positive cycle that leads employees to become fully engaged in their work.

The problem of course is that the vast majority of managers cannot talk to their employees honestly and effectively enough about how they are “doing” to positively influence and therefore create success.

This is especially true for acceptable employees. They tend not to give enough praise and reinforcement and they avoid telling them anything that could rock the boat, especially if these are critical and sensitive perceptions or conclusions that cannot be tied to “objective” and measurable performance standards. (E.g., “She lacks credibility”, “He is a know it all”. etc.).

Because managers don’t “hold up the mirror” to acceptable performers (remember, these are the majority in any given work group) these employees have no opportunity to judge whether their self-assessment of their performance and potential is correct or not. Since self-perception is far from being infallible, and reading minds is unreliable at best, these employees end up essentially working in the dark. The net effect of this situation on acceptable performers is that they end up having:

• No factual idea of how they are “really” doing (they only know how they think they are doing)

• No clear picture of how to be more successful. In other words, they do not know:

• What to continue doing in the same way (good performance/behaviour).

• What to do differently (how to perform better).

• What to stop doing (poor performance/behaviour which is counter-productive).

This is in direct contrast to the situation of the chronic poor performers and the stars – who are always having the mirror “held up” and therefore have a reasonably accurate understanding of how their performance and potential is perceived by management

Consequences of Managing by NOT Talking About Performance

What is particularly worrisome is that this approach of managing performance by NOT talking about it can actually end up reducing performance and productivity levels of acceptable employees because when they don’t receive:

Corrective feedback. They assume that “no news is good news”. Actually, as any manager knows, this is not necessarily true. However, this situation can actually cause the poor performance in the first place. The reason why otherwise good employees don’t meet expectations in some way is often simply because they are unaware that there is a problem. Moreover, the reason that any poor performance usually continues is that no-one points it out and gives them the opportunity to correct it.

The result of “not knowing” might be as minor”as continuing to write mediocre reports, having a tendency to complain, telling off-colour jokes inappropriately, not listening well in meetings, only doing what is required rather than “delighting” the customer, etc. etc. Or, it could be as big as not knowing that they are doing something (or not doing something, or doing something the wrong way) that is holding them back from achieving their potential. For example, dressing inappropriately, not gaining the respect of their employees, playing politics too obviously, taking the credit for things that they haven’t done, an inability to convince people via a presentation, poor reaction to conflict, etc., etc.

When employees don’t see their performance and potential the same way as others see it (especially those people who matter – i.e., management) they end up feeling resentful because they don’t understand why they are being constantly overlooked for assignments that are more interesting, developmental opportunities, promotions, etc. They don’t understand that other people see their performance in a more negative light than they do.

Reinforcing feedback. They have a tendency to feel rejected and unappreciated, left out and resentful, inadequate, frustrated, and discouraged.

When employees feel this way there is a good chance that they will become demoralized, lose pride, stagnate, and stop trying (“Why should I bother? It doesn’t matter what I do anyway”). It is not so much that they perform poorly – they still have pride after all – it is more that they become less engaged. This results in an unwillingness to go the extra mile and perform at the higher levels of which they are capable.

Honest and effective feedback is a prerequisite for employee engagement and improved productivity

Managing performance by avoidance then, whether consciously or not, does not even maintain the performance and productivity status quo. The net effect is that it actually has a detrimental effect on it

It is only when managers take active approach to managing employee performance and take the time to talk to them about “how they are doing” that they are in a position to actively influence the performance and productivity levels of the majority of their employees.

This is why PAF feedback can make such a big difference. It enables managers to take what they know in their heads about someone’s performance) translate it into effective feedback and communicate this information successfully.

It is works to give both superior reinforcing feedback and even the most difficult and sensitive corrective feedback.

Because PAF feedback works with ANY aspect of performance and in ANY context (including informal chats, formal appraisals, developmental meetings, coaching situations, etc.) it is a very flexible tool to help managers to start the engagement cycle.