Performance Management

Given that the majority of companies are currently run by those in their forties and fifties and that most middle managers are younger than that, it is no surprise that few in business today remember the last really major global recession, which took place nearly 28 years ago in 1980-82. There have been other economic ‘corrections’ of course, but in the 1980-82 recession 55% of developed countries experienced an extended period of flat or negative growth. Even the 1987 financial crisis and stock market ‘correction’ is outside the memories of most managers and so it comes as no surprise that they are very ill-equipped to deal with the current recession (which borders on a depression) and are panicking.

The extraordinary thing is that the current response to the economic turmoil is very similar to the failed responses to earlier recessions. Many companies are simply cutting the work force, cutting production, and cutting overheads in general – although in some sectors it is particularly noticeable that these cuts are falling disproportionately on the front line workers rather than across the business as a whole: there is little evidence that there is a thinning of management ranks as yet.

It is probably true to say that in the good times many businesses try hard to retain those workers whose performance is deemed to be below the required standard (which begs the question whether the ‘required standard’ has been realistically ascertained or whether performance figures and criteria have simply been plucked from the air) and that when times get hard these ‘poor performers’ are made redundant. In theory, this makes the company ‘leaner and meaner’ as it gets rid of those making the least contribution to the business – but in reality, responsibility for the performance of these people rests with the managers and it is these people that should be looked at very carefully.

The other failed approach to redundancy is the ‘last in, first out’ strategy. Read the rest of this entry »

When Margaret Thatcher became the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and her soul mate, Ronald Reagan, became President of the United States, it did rather seem that a new era had dawned: one in which collectivism died and individualism became the dominating philosophy. Gone were the restrictive practices of the unions and the limitations on what we, as workers, were allowed to do and in came a new approach to the work relationship (see my essay of 2000 entitled New Realities). No longer a case of master-slave, it became one of willing buyer (the employer) and willing seller (the worker) and a negotiated agreement was reached that, in many cases, left the worker with the right to earn whatever he or she wanted, and the company with a motivated and highly performant workforce. It all seemed like a win-win situation and the world (or, at least, the advanced economic world) was changed forever.

By the Nineties, the new philosophy had spawned its fair share of extremists: there were the Geekoists spouting that fictional character’s mantra “greed is good” and proposing ‘big hairy goals’ to ‘stretch’ the performance of the workers with unlimited bonuses to reward the best results. Then there were those who felt that society was changing unacceptably and Read the rest of this entry »

One can hardly fail to be aware of the current crisis in the world of finance and you don’t have to look hard to find the media (and the politicians) laying the blame squarely at the feet of the banks. It’s the fault of the banks, they scream; if the banks acted in a more responsible manner, etc – but, of course, banks are NOT to blame because banks are inanimate and have no capacity to act on their own. I even thought I’d seen such a respectable newspaper as The Economist make the same mistake – but they hadn’t (fortunately!!).
If we want to allocate blame (and who doesn’t) then we need to look at root causes and the fault lies with PEOPLE. Now, people are capable of … Read the rest of this entry »