Performance Mismanagement Systems: I

Performance management systems generally have a bad reputation. Sadly, it's a reputation well deserved. Although performance appraisal is often painful for both appraisers and the people whose performance is appraised, that isn't at the heart of the problems with performance management systems. Performance management systems are so poorly suited to their stated objectives that we really must call them performance mismanagement systems.

Their flaws are many. In the next installment of this exploration, I examine some unintended consequences of these systems. In this Part I, I examine four of the foundational assumptions that seem most at odds with the goal of helping organizations and their people reach their potential.

The fallacy of composition

A logical argument is based on a fallacy known as the fallacy of composition when it assumes that if a statement is true about a part of the whole, then the statement is true about the whole. For example, we commit the fallacy of composition when we conclude that a bicycle is made of rubber because one of the tires is made of rubber.

A fundamental premise of many performance management systems is the idea that when we elevate the performance of every individual in the organization, then we have done much to elevate the performance of the entire organization. Because maximum performance does require resources, and because resources are finite, maximizing the personal performance of each person in the enterprise doesn't necessarily maximize enterprise performance. One can easily imagine situations in which optimum enterprise performance requires that some activities be curtailed so that we can undertake others with greater energy.

The reification error

We commit a reification error when we treat an abstract concept as if it were a real thing. For example, performance is not a thing. A person's performance cannot be measured in any way analogous to measuring a person's weight or height. Thus, assigning a grade to someone's performance is inherently subjective; making it seem objective doesn't make performance a real thing.

The data generated by performance management systems is not a set of performance measurements. Rather, it is a set of performance appraisals. When we accept as a goal of a performance management system elevating performance appraisal of every employee, we might be inviting those performers to take steps that actually degrade organizational performance. To avoid educating the more devious amongst us, I leave to the reader's imagination — or recollection — the question of how some people might elevate their appraisals, as opposed to elevating their performance.

The myth of identifiable contributions

The myth of The myth of identifiable contributions is
the belief that we can accurately assess
someone's performance on the basis of
contributions because any and all
contributions an employee
makes are identifiableidentifiable contributions is the belief that we can accurately assess someone's performance on the basis of contributions because any and all contributions an employee makes are identifiable. That is, we assume that when we ask people to generate lists of their contributions to the organizational mission, they can do so in relatively short order. Or we can ask them to keep personal journals listing their contributions. And when the supervisor then scans these lists, the supervisor recalls and can confirm that the entries in the lists are complete and accurate.

While people can certainly generate such lists, well-known cognitive biases limit their value. As I recently discussed, the Availability Heuristic provides one limit. But another limit is even more important — our inability to predict the future. The value of some contributions might not become clear until far into the future, when developments not yet conceived finally become available. And inversely, what seems now to be a positive contribution might be proven at some time in the future to be misdirection or waste or worse. And some contributions are never recognized as contributions. For example, we rarely regard as a "contribution" the sometimes-courageous act of asking a question that reveals an inherent flaw in a concept and which then leads to cancellation of a product development effort that would have ultimately failed. Asking such questions can prevent the waste of significant resources, and help the organization avoid serious embarrassment or even bankruptcy.

The myth of omniscient supervision

It is commonly assumed that supervisors are fully aware of the activities of the people they supervise, that they are qualified to assess the value of those contributions, and that they could actually perform the work of those people. Essentially, it is assumed that relative to the work of the people supervised, supervisors are omniscient.

In the modern workplace, especially the knowledge-oriented workplace, these assumptions are usually invalid. Consequently, many supervisors are unable to objectively appraise the quality of the work of everyone they supervise. To perform these appraisals, they rely on claims and assertions of the supervisee, and on extrinsic indicators such as comments from the leaders of teams to which the supervisee has been detailed, the opinions of the peers of the supervisee, the timeliness of delivery of work products, and the social standing of the supervisee. This approach renders the supervisor's appraisal vulnerable to tactics some employees use to project an image of capability and productivity that is at odds with the reality. The appraisal is also vulnerable to malicious tactics employed by third parties, including rivals, who provide comments about the supervisee's activities.

In Part II of this exploration we'll examine the effects of quota systems for assessing employee performance.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Critical Thinking at Work:

Interviewing the Willing: Strategy

At times, we need information from each other. For example, we want to learn about how someone approached a similar problem, or we must interview someone about system requirements. Yet, even when the source is willing, we sometimes fail to expose critical facts. How can we elicit information from the willing more effectively?

Call in the Right Expert

When solving a problem is beyond us, we turn to experts, but sometimes we turn to the wrong experts. That can make the problem even worse. Why? How does this happen? What can we do about it?

Disjoint Concept Vocabularies

In disputes or in problem-solving sessions, when we can't come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties have too little in common.

Five Guidelines for Choices

Each day we make dozens or hundreds of choices — maybe more. We make many of those choices outside our awareness. But we can make better choices if we can recognize choice patterns that often lead to trouble. Here are five guidelines for making choices.

Disproof of Concept

Proof-of-concept studies of system designs usually try to devise solution options and discover the system's operating constraints. But limitations can become clear too late. A different approach — disproof of concept — can be a useful alternative.

See also Critical Thinking at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming July 23: Microdelegation

Microdelegation is a style of delegation in which the delegator unintentionally communicates the task to the subordinate in such detail and so repetitively that the subordinate is offended. As a result of this delegation style, many subordinates feel distrusted or suspected of fraud or goldbricking. Available here and by RSS on July 23.

And on July 30: What the Dunning-Kruger Effect Actually Is

Although the Dunning-Kruger Effect is widely recognized, people describe it — and understand it — in many different ways. Some of these expressions are misleading. Proceed with caution. Available here and by RSS on July 30.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenaXXxGCwVgbgLZDuRner@ChacDjdMAATPdDNJnrSwoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info