When people refer to performance management efforts, it nearly always means systems and processes supporting annual or project-based performance reviews. Although these processes can be effective blunt instruments to ensure expectations are being set with some consistency and that feedback is being given at least once a year, they seldom result in higher levels of achievement and employee sentiment regarding the in-house performance review process they are subject to is generally abysmal.
In recent years, the trend has been organizations moving away from rating/category intensive forms and focused more on shorter-term goals and OKRs to become more explicit with expectations. But without the supporting management approaches, the form itself is really irrelevant. What techniques can managers use to encourage strong performance (and focus on important results) on the daily?
Micro-Management vs. “Macro-management” – The Two Ends of the Spectrum
When we think of managers managing performance, there are generally two ends of that spectrum. Most of us are more familiar with the term “micro-management”, as it’s one of the more popular labels to attach to ineffective managers. We use it to describe a wide range of behaviors, but the technical definition is someone who manages to too great a level of detail with too great of a frequency. Most people don’t have an issue with a leader periodically checking over their work as a quality control measure. Most people do have an issue when that manager is constantly looking over their shoulder, and critiquing methods rather than results. (i.e. “Why are you using a counter-clockwise motion to clean these dishes. Here at Jerk Corporation, we only use clockwise motions!”)
Then there is the opposite side. Macro-managers are even less successful in terms of business results, but we don’t hear about them as often. Why? Because staff who work for macro-managers are generally more satisfied in their roles than those working under a micro-manager. The boss who is always gone, never looks over your work, and may vaguely set expectations (but never holds you accountable) is not the worst boss in the world to work for, if you take a short-term view. Thinking long-term, working for this type of person will rot your capabilities (and your career), and you’ll seldom be producing the type of results you can feel proud of at the end of the day.
There are a myriad of business ‘rescue’ shows on the air – restaurants, bars, and many other businesses. The businesses are usually in trouble for a variety of visible reasons (symptoms) – poor quality, cleanliness issues, service issues, poor money management, etc. – but the root causes behind these reasons are almost always a disconnected owner and/or manager. (And so the intense and focused host becomes the solution to move them away from macro management).
Both ends of the spectrum are trouble. Micro-managers don’t give people enough freedom to do their jobs and feel ownership in the results, while macro-managers give people so much freedom that they don’t do their jobs and don’t feel ownership in the results. Different method, but the results are somewhat similar. Micro-management makes people less productive and makes them quit. Macro-management makes people less productive and they stay. Both are bad.
So how does someone find the happy medium in between to better manage performance of their teams?
Walking the Line
I’m going to save you from a deep dive into the industrial psychology topic of operant conditioning, but we are going to take a shallow dive to learn how this concept best applies in the world of management.
Let’s take the example of checking in on your team at a job site when you have no daily requirement to be there. You want to check in enough so people know that your eyes are on the team and their work, but not to such a degree that they start losing their sense of autonomy (which causes behaviors like punting issues to you rather than taking care of them within the team.)
So you want to manage (set expectations, monitor work, etc.) but only on an intermittent basis. There are four basic schedules for selective reinforcement:
- Fixed Interval schedules involve reviewing activity every n days/weeks. As you can imagine, in these examples, people come to learn the schedule, and work extra hard on those occasions. (i.e. The boss always visits this client on Friday morning.)
- Fixed Ratio schedules involve reviewing every nth piece of work. (i.e. The boss has a cycle of client rotation visits, so there is not a regular date or other schedule of arrival, but you do know approximately when you are likely “due”.)
- Variable Interval schedules involve reviewing activity, on average, one out of every n days. So this means that you might have a few reviews in a row, or large gap between reviews, but it all evens out in the end. (i.e. The boss will visit the a client site once a month, but the specific day will be apparently random in nature.)
- Variable Ratio schedules involve changing activity review frequency on an irregular basis, while not operating on a set schedule. This would involve reviewing a high number of work items one month, reviewing only a few the next, an average amount the following month, and so on. (Maybe spending more time on high importance aspects of the team that carry more risk, and less attention to those that are less important and lower risk.)
Using one of these methods for “checking in” on work is one of the best way and easiest ways to walk the line between micro- and macro-management. You aren’t looking at the details on everything (so people feel control over their work), but you are looking at the details on certain things (to show that you care, and that they are important).
How It Appears In Practice
A great analogy is the methods when applied to speed limit enforcement. Here’s what each method would look like for the police force.
- Fixed Interval – Every Tuesday morning, a police officer sets up just over that one hill (you know which one). As you can imagine, people would plan around this, generally only driving the speed limit when they know it would be monitored.
- Fixed Ratio – The officer works a rotation of eight different speed traps. This one is a little bit harder to “sniff out”, but it can be done. Even if a schedule is not built, people know there are at least a few clear days after seeing the officer.
- Variable Interval – The officer is at a particular location three times a month, but shuffles their frequency so it appears unscheduled. This method is indeed significantly better than the first two, but you can still have times when you appear “due” to have an officer there, or when you know they’re likely going to be rotated to other spots for a while.
- Variable Ratio – The officer is there, then gone for one week, then there three days in a row. Gone for two months. Then back every other day for the next two weeks. And so on.
This illustrates why variable ratio works most effectively for quality control. The more unpredictable you are with your check-ins and reviews, the more people will have a nagging feeling that you may be coming by that morning, or checking over that document with a fine tooth comb, so they should prepare their best effort. However you are not omni-present, causing the negative effects of micro-management.
That said, the negative by-product of variable ratio builds distrust because of its unpredictability.
On the other other end of the spectrum, fixed interval builds trust because of the steadiness of the process, but doesn’t keep as tight of a grip on productivity/quality.
Accordingly, you’ve got to know your team and their situation, so you can select the most appropriate approach. Any of these approaches will help you strike a balance between Micro- and Macro-Management.