The Metiss Group's Blog

Any parent with more than one child knows how different they are (pet owners know this too).  In sports, most of the great coaches are successful because they know each player requires a different type of leadership.  Unfortunately, many leaders have one leadership style they apply to each of their direct reports and expect their direct reports to excel.

Everyone has different behavior styles and workplace motivations.  Some direct reports respond best with a firm message, others with a gentle nudging, and others with lengthy conversations.  Some people are motivated by recognition, some by money, and others by altruism, etc.  The best leaders take time to understand their direct reports’ differences and tailor their leadership approaches to each person.

Empowered leaders understand their direct reports’ behavioral styles and motivations, apply unique leadership approaches, and are more successful.

At the beginning of the year organizations set their annual goals and most leaders, in turn, set their team’s annual goals.  Goal setting plans should not stop there.

If performance against goals is to be measured and achieved, each annual goal must have shorter sub-goals.  Leaders and direct reports should set and review these sub-goals regularly – ideally as part of their one-on-one meetings.  The organization’s annual goals should be a primary focus for leaders and each of their direct reports as they review progress weekly.

For example, if the organization’s sales goal is $10 million, a sales person’s weekly sub-goal might be to make 20 calls to prospective customers and set three appointments.  Leaders should not be as concerned with what their direct report’s sub-goals are, but whether or not they lead to accomplishing the organization’s annual goal.  If the monthly or quarterly goals are not being met, it allows leaders to have healthy conversations about what has been done, and what adjustments might be helpful.

Leaders who make sure each of their direct reports clearly understand the organization’s goals, and empower direct reports to set and achieve their sub-goals will experience more success.

What’s the difference between a performance review and a performance appraisal?  Although there are no formal or official distinctions between a performance review and a performance appraisal, and both terms are frequently used interchangeably, think of performance reviews as part of the performance acceleration process and performance appraisals as an event.

Performance appraisals are the formal appraisal document a supervisor delivers to their direct report on the organization’s official performance appraisal form.  The event occurs either annually or semi-annually, and often encompasses a salary adjustment.  The lengthy form is filed in the employee’s file and rarely referenced again.

Performance reviews are informal reviews between a supervisor and their direct report as a part of a process in which the direct report’s performance is discussed and adjustments are communicated and tracked.  The review should cover previously communicated topics and take place at least quarterly; lengthy performance forms are not used (blank paper and/or 5×7 cards work best).  In some cases, leaders have found doing this quarterly satisfies their performance appraisal and the corporate form can be abandoned. The performance reviews should drive the performance appraisal event.

Leaders who use performance appraisals AND performance reviews to empower direct reports find more success.

The left and right hemispheres of our brain provide different functions.  Our left brain focuses on tactical or analytical activities while our right brain is used for strategic or creative activities.  We function best when we focus our attention on one of the brain specialties at a time.  In fact, many leaders structure their meetings so as to deal with tactical and strategic thinking in different sessions; however, there are times when employing both aspects are critical to the success of a given effort.

When developing a direct report’s job definition, whether using an accountability matrix or job description, leaders should use both tactical and strategic thinking.  The tactical components of a job definition include the specific required activities and the way in which they are performed.  The strategic aspects of a job are the success factors and priorities as they relate to the organization’s strategic direction and initiatives.

Leaders who challenge themselves and empower their direct reports to include both tactical and strategic components in their job definitions experience more short-term and long-term success.

In a poll conducted by human resources consultant Right Management of workers in a challenged industry, 60% of workers said they intended to leave their jobs when the market got better.

Leaders need to constantly ask themselves what they are doing to retain their superstars.  What talent processes are in place to ensure they don’t lose 60% of their team? Based on The 7 Hidden Reasons Employees Leave by Leigh Branham, employees leave because:

1.    Job is not as expected

2.    Job doesn’t fit talents and interests

3.    Little or no feedback/coaching

4.    No hope for career growth

5.    Feel devalued and unrecognized

6.    Feel overworked and stressed out

7.    Lack of trust or confidence in leaders

Talent processes improve the chances of retaining superstars as valuable contributors to the organization.  A comprehensive selection process addresses job expectations (#1), job fit (#2), and organization fit (#4).  A robust performance process addresses feedback (#3), recognition (#5), workload (#6) and trust (#7).

Implementing effective selection and performance processes empower leaders to successfully hold on to their superstars.

Everyone has their own natural behavior style.  This hard wiring is the result of personal DNA.  Ideally, performance is optimized when the job is matched with one’s natural skill set.

Though leaders should strive to fit jobs and direct reports’ skill sets, rarely is there a perfect match for a person and a job.  Most people are required to adapt their natural skills to those required in the job.  However, those people with a more developed critical thinking or problem solving aptitude are better able to adapt their natural skills for short periods of time to accomplish the job at hand.

When evaluating talent or considering job fit, leaders should pay particular attention to critical thinking skills and aptitude.  An increased critical thinking ability provides much more job flexibility and likelihood for success, especially when the tasks within one job set are quite diverse.

Empowered leaders evaluate their direct reports’ critical thinking skills and have more successful performers.