Let's Get Straight to the Point

March 2013

Using mediation earlier in the employment relationship

The Harvard Business Review recently sent out a striking e-mail flyer. Under the title “Take the Pain out of Performance Reviews” it recommended three books comprising the Performance Management Collection.  “As a manager”, it said, “dealing effectively and judiciously with the issues standing between your employees and optimal performance is critical for the success of your company—and your career. Yet, it can be a frustrating, time-consuming, angst-ridden administrative nightmare.....”.

 

Performance management processes range from revelatory to uninformative, enabling to dispiriting, formal to chilled, long-term career orientated to short-term results focused. In many organisations, including some very small ones, enormous effort goes into defining processes, producing documentation, enforcing compliance and re-inventing wheels. For many managers, the demands of the appraisal cycle can resemble those of the financial planning process - more feeding the beast than path to enlightenment.

This is not to question the value of rigorous, systematic appraisal but to ask whether it could be made more efficient, extracting more value and eliminating wasted time and effort. A common hazard is process overload - cramming past year performance review, distribution of corporate targets, personal objective setting, career development, reverse feedback and sundry other major issues into a single yearly or twice-yearly review. As we all clearly see when we do it, this pile up is made worse when a difficult conversation has been "saved up" from the time when it should naturally have occurred - in fact, the difficult conversation, with added toxicity from delay, shock or guilt, can be all that happens in an annual review.

Training, clear process guidelines and firm HR support can help appraisers avoid the worst effects of these problems, but might there be a more direct way to bring form and shape to a challenging appraisal?

Mediation is becoming increasingly well established as a quick, cheap and effective way of resolving differences as an alternative to litigation.  But frequently the benefit is not as powerful as it could have been. This is because mediation happens at a late stage, after positions have become entrenched, often after legal proceedings have begun and costs incurred. In employment relationships, it is most likely to feature as part of a separation.

Could mediation techniques help to rescue working relationships earlier?  Appraisal meetings are a precious opportunity to talk about what matters most to the participants.  What gets in the way of this happening?  More often than not, plain fear.  Appraisers, nowadays increasingly insecure about their own position, are unable to respond to reasonable concerns (if only because they are missing important information from above) and reluctant to ask perfectly natural questions such as: “Would you like to think about doing something new?”.  Appraisees are unlikely to say they don’t have enough to do, feel ineffective, or want to progress to a different kind of job.  If there is already tension in the relationship, natural discussion may be inhibited by a perceived need to be “building a case” for future use.

Skills traditionally associated with mediation could add decisive value to difficult reviews.  With the agreement of both sides, a ‘moderator’ could work with each in total confidence to identify their respective needs, interests and objectives and develop a shared plan.  It would be essential for the moderator to be professionally independent, demonstrate neutrality and guarantee confidentiality.  For these reasons, (s)he would almost certainly be from outside the organisation.  The moderator would take responsibility for maintaining procedural discipline, including time management. In extreme cases, the parties might conclude that they wish to separate on agreed terms - if so, there is no point in delaying the inevitable but much to be said for finding a constructive settlement.  However, the overriding emphasis would be on opening up opportunities for agreement on constructive action and strengthening, rather than usurping the internal existing management process.

In the world of employment lawyers and relationship breakdown, appraisal records are seen as vital evidence relating to the (non-) performance of a legal contract. But the business purpose of appraisal should be constructive: shared understanding, improved effectiveness, personal development and innovation. These are things which require discretionary effort on both sides and lie in the domain of the “psychological contract” - engagement as opposed to obedience. If they are absent, no business will thrive. As with all processes, it is worth asking continually whether performance reviews could deliver better. Are they discussing the important issues rather than innocuous trivia? Do they result in concrete action? Are the participants really committed to what they have agreed?

A mediator could help in achieving a strongly positive answer to each of these questions.