Thirty thousand neuroscientists descended on Chicago this weekend, spreading across the city like a neural network, to connect, spark ideas and exchange information. One of them mentioned to me how morale in her department at a prestigious university hit an all-time low when the new head took over. What is his offense? His big problem is being Mr. Nice Guy. Always pleasant, agrees with everyone, never refuses a request (although don’t expect him to deliver), never makes controversial decisions (he generally makes no decisions just to play safe) and at the first sign of conflict or confrontation, goes into hiding. The last straw was his approach to annual performance reviews when he checked off boxes marked “good” for everyone and then dispensed with review meetings believing this would make everyone happy. Slowly, the department is unraveling in this absence of leadership.
Here is a Neuroscientist who does not understand how important performance reviews – when skillfully handled – are for helping people develop professionally and for keeping engagement and morale high. But how can Neuroscience help?
David Rock, author of Quiet Leadership, describes how neuro-imaging studies reveal that the primitive brain responds either positively or negatively to five basic social stimuli: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness. Deriving from these observations, how can you ensure that performance reviews are no longer the dreaded day of judgment or a flippant box-checking exercise? By focusing on each of these principles, you avoid igniting the volatile limbic system of your employees that makes them want to fight or flee the meeting room. Follow these principles, and you will see a difference.
Status
Be aware that the performance review, particularly if it is linked to salary or bonus discussions – I wish it weren’t! – is the time when people feel most vulnerable in terms of status. This truly is the moment when the boss seems to have all the cards and the employee very few. By taking the trouble to ask rather than tell, to engage in a real conversation about what the employee achieved and hopes to achieve, and by discussing how the employee can be supported to achieve even more the following year, the emotional triggers of perceived low status can be alleviated, and the review is likely to be more constructive and productive with a far reaching impact on your organization.
Certainty
The brain generally does not appreciate surprises, uncertainty or sudden changes. So why not minimize this impact when you conduct performance reviews? Plan the meeting ahead of time, share the agenda with your employee, offer time for questions and open discussion, and do not spring unpleasant surprises. If someone’s performance has not been up to scratch, this should be addressed very specifically at the time it occurs, not in a vindictive or generalized performance review months later.
Autonomy
People have a natural desire to figure things out for themselves, so why not harness this during performance review time? As long as you have been clear about role expectations and what behaviors lead to success in your organization, why not let your employees do most of the talking about their performances, hopes, challenges and goals? Your role shifts from carrying all the responsibility – which is unnecessarily burdensome anyway – and you, by being an active listener and provider of support rather than judge or executioner, honor the autonomy of your staff and enable them to flourish.
Relatedness
As social beings, people seek connection. In the workplace, if there is a sense of teamwork and good human relations between leaders and employees, then performance, engagement and loyalty are likely to be stronger. Use the performance review conversation as an opportunity to build rapport with your employees. Give the meeting your full attention. Find out about your employees’ worlds. Listen with interest and respect. Help them set challenging goals for the following year. Share something of yourself. One hour of human interaction will be paid back many times over and will likely lead to increased performance irrespective of the content of the conversation.
Fairness
This is a critical emotional trigger especially at performance review time. People are always measuring themselves against others, against their own past, and against stated or unstated criteria for performance. If your comments, salary or bonus decisions are perceived unfair, you can be sure you will not see enhanced performance following the annual review. This is not to say you always have to have good news. But it is to say that you should be able to justify your position and be transparent about your thinking and your criteria. Fairness is the basic building block of trust, and without that, you will have a hard time generating better performance from your employees.
© Copyright, 2009, Fredia Woolf. Used with permission.
Fredia Woolf, MBA, is the founder of Woolf Consulting, a leadership and change management consultancy. She works with leaders to define and create their desired legacy, and builds the capacity of individuals and teams to increase their effectiveness and accelerate the accomplishment of positive results.
She can be reached at fwoolf@woolfconsulting.com.
#
Last updated on November 30th, 2009 at 06:35 pm
Share this:
I’ve been researching this subject for quite a while and you have just blew my mind with your writing 🙂