Peer Performance Reviews:

Transcription

1 Peer Performance Reviews: A Case Study in How Teams Continuously Improve by Martin L. Ramsay CEATH Company We were coming to the end of another peer performance review session in which members of a team had reviewed the performance of one of their own. This had been a session with engineers, not a group usually known for its comfort with touchy-feely subjects. There were several comments, but the one that summed up the group s consensus came from a veteran engineer noted for his gruff outlook on life. I thought that peer review was a way for managers to shirk their duty because we re spread so thin, he commented. But I m impressed. This really has great potential. The engineer s comment didn t surprise us. The peer performance review system our team had designed had been working well for many months and accolades like these were becoming the norm. But this kind of comment, coming from a hard-core group of engineers, caused us to stop and think. What is it about peer performance reviews that make them such a powerful means of improvement? Are there some basic principles we discovered along the way that are important, that should be shared? Upon reflection, I decided that a case study to firm up our team s learnings and to share our experiences was in order. Thus this article. New Ways of Working Our story has its roots in 1987 when the company we were working for was facing extreme trials in the marketplace. The company had already closed one plant in Michigan, and was closing a second in Kentucky. In their places, the company was building a new, smaller factory to produce some product lines, while outsourcing the rest, most of it in Korea. Along with the new factory, management recognized the need for a new organization. The new factory would be based on the concept of self-directed work teams. From the day the product rolled off the assembly line, teams had been a major part of the new corporate culture. The company s assessment center focused on a potential employee s ability to work in a team and desire to improve; training programs had been designed to create group competencies in team members; and a performance review system had been developed to reinforce these and other standards of excellence $see figure 1%. Moving from performance reviews done by the supervisor to peer performance reviews had always been one of our goals. By 1992, the corporate culture had evolved to the point that peer performance reviews seemed possible. Work teams were functioning in both factories $a second factory had been built in 1991% and in some office areas. In many cases, we believed, the teams were mature enough to begin considering use of the peer performance review concept. We established a Training Advisory Committee $TAC% at each factory and at the corporate offices. Each TAC, composed of managers from the facility, has the responsibility for assessing education and training needs at its location and for insuring the delivery of educational experiences to meet those needs. Many of the needs identified are technical in nature & welding, hydraulics and torque & but many are behavioral. Since the corporate philosophy is one of self-directed work teams, teams are expected to be able to manage their work schedule, perform group problem solving, and to interact effectively with each other and with other teams. Thus courses in interpersonal skills, effective meetings, problem solving and business processes were developed. One Copyright, 1993, CEATH Company page 1

2 of the needs identified, however, was the ability to correct and improve each other s performance. The managers began to talk about a course titled Correcting Peer Performance, but had difficulty coming to grips with what it should include. Through a series of meetings we facilitated with the TACs, it became apparent that a natural progression would be to consider implementing a peer performance review system. Standards of Excellence The company evaluates its employees in ten dimensions: Quality of Work Safety and Housekeeping Job Knowledge and Skills Dependability and Reliability Work Performance Initiative Adaptability and Flexibility Stewardship Customer Relations Interpersonal Relations and Teamwork Each Standard of Excellence can have up to four points, for a total of 40 points maximum, with the following meanings: 0 - Needs Much Improvement Performance does not meet requirements and substantial progress is needed. 1 - Needs Improvement Performance often does not meet requirements and visible room for improvement exits. 2 - Good and Competent Performance normally meets basic requirements and may exceed expected levels in some cases. 3 - Highly Effective Performance usually exceeds requirements and may far exceed expected levels in some areas 4 - Outstanding Performance consistently far exceeds requirements and is visibly superior to that of the majority of others. Figure 1! The Standards of Excellence form the basis for observable behavior that the peer performance review system seeks to instill. Models for Peer Performance Review The first order of business was to determine an appropriate model for the reviews $see figures 2 through 5%. Several alternatives were considered, ranging from the team merely providing input to the supervisor s review $figure 2%, to the team doing the review without any involvement from the supervisor at all $figure 5%. The Plant Two TAC, following an experimental implementation in one department in Plant One, decided to use a model in which the review was done jointly by the employee s team members and the supervisor as equals $see figure 3%. Ultimately the desire was to include some of the employee s internal customers in the review team $figure 4%. In some cases, Plant Two is already using Model D, particularly where the team is small. Copyright, 1993, CEATH Company page 2

3 Figure 2! In this model, the employee s peers provide feedback to the employee s supervisor. The supervisor then gives the performance review to the employee, with the review informed by the peers input. Figure 3! In this model, the employee s peers are more engaged in the process. Through a facilitated discussion, the group! which includes the peers and the supervisor!comes to consensus about the feedback to be given to the employee. The performance review is then given to the employee by the supervisor in a feedback session which may also be facilitated. Copyright, 1993, CEATH Company page 3

4 Figure 4! This model is the most ellaborate. It involves the employee s supervisor, peers, and some customers. The customers may be internal #that is, other employees who are served by the work of the employee receiving the review$ or external. Involving external customers requiring inviting feedback from people who are not employees of the orgnization. The facilitator works with the team to reach consensus about the feedback to give, then facilitates a feedback session in which the entire team gives their feedback to the employee. Figure 5! This model is completely self-directed. The supervisor does not have a role. Instead, the facilitator helps a team of the employee s peers reach consensus about the performance review that is to be given. The facilitator then helps the team provide the feedback directly to the employee. Copyright, 1993, CEATH Company page 4

5 The next step was to train the teams on doing a peer performance review. But before that happened, the managers decided that they must lead the way. It isn t fair, commented the plant manger of Plant Two, for us to expect other teams to submit to peer reviews if we can t do it ourselves. We knew there would be some fears about this, so we wanted to lead by example. Being a strong believer in the power of peer reviews, the Materials Manager volunteered to the subject for the first review. The results of the trial run were overwhelmingly positive. Appreciation for each other s job increased. I had no idea that s what you did, said the Quality Assurance Manager at the conclusion. Another pointed out that, where ratings were lower, the entire team of managers had the responsibility to help their peer improve. The team took ownership for its ratings and for working together to improve. Following this experience, the managers easily made the decision to move ahead with implementing peer performance reviews throughout the facility. Plant One also began to expand its peer review implementation beyond the initial department. One department at corporate headquarters also began implementing peer reviews. Peer performance reviews happen in two phases: the review phase and the feedback phase. The majority of the training is required in the review phase. Because of the training the teams had already received, there was general familiarity with giving and receiving feedback and with group dynamics. In both phases, a facilitator/trainer guides the group through the process of learning about peer performance reviews and later facilitates the actual review meetings. Training for Peer Performance Reviews We use a temporary employee as the review subject during initial training to make the training as experiential as possible. This practice has the advantage of using a live subject with which the participants are familiar. The alternative would be a rather two-dimensional case study or, worse, no subject at all. Temporary employees, because of their brief time at the company, are not routinely reviewed. Their permission is always obtained prior to conducting the training in which they are used as the subject. Most temporaries give their permission enthusiastically and express a desire to hear the results of the review. During the initial training $see sidebar%, participants review the company s Ten Standards of Excellence and, more importantly, the criteria for scoring in each standard. For example, an employee is considered good and competent if he or she routinely meets expectations $see figure 1%. To receive a highly effective rating, or even an outstanding one, the employee must go beyond expectations. This, in turn, initiates a discussion about expectations. What expectations does the group have of the person being reviewed? More importantly, what expectations does the group have of itself? Equitable peer performance review standards would require that each member of the group be held to the same expectations. The group Topics Covered During Initial Peer Review Training 1. Review how the peer performance review system works. 2. Review the Ten Standards of Excellence. 3. Review the rating system and what each score means. 4. Begin to establish expectations for the individual and for the group. 5. Understand that ratings are based on observed behavior. 6. Define and learn to produce good documentation. 7. Learn to overcome a lack of knowledge about what each other does. 8. Learn how to incorporate management's input as peer input. 9. Understand the meaning of consensus and how to achieve it. 10. Commit to a "no surprises" attitude that requires team members to be supportive all year long. Copyright, 1993, CEATH Company page 5

6 soon understands that, in doing peer performance reviews, they are articulating expectations they have of each other and of themselves. Through the peer performance review process, these expectations are communicated in concrete terms to the person receiving the review and to the group as a whole. We use a temporary employee as the review subject during initial training to make the training as experiential as possible. This practice has the advantage of using a live subject with which the participants are familiar. The alternative would be a rather two-dimensional case study or, worse, no subject at all. Temporary employees, because of their brief time at the company, are not routinely reviewed. Their permission is always obtained prior to conducting the training in which they are used as the subject. Most temporaries give their permission enthusiastically and express a desire to hear the results of the review. During the initial training $see figure 6%, participants review the company s Ten Standards of Excellence and, more importantly, the criteria for scoring in each standard. For example, an employee is considered good and competent if he or she routinely meets expectations $see figure 1%. To receive a highly effective rating, or even an outstanding one, the employee must go beyond expectations. This, in turn, initiates a discussion about expectations. What expectations does the group have of the person being reviewed? More importantly, what expectations does the group have of itself? Equitable peer performance review standards would require that each member of the group be held to the same expectations. The group soon understands that, in doing peer performance reviews, they are articulating expectations they have of each other and of themselves. Through the peer performance review process, these expectations are communicated in concrete terms to the person receiving the review and to the group as a whole. One problem teams often have is how to evaluate relatively new employees. New employees are reviewed after they have been on the job for six months. Because of the effectiveness of the company s pre-employment assessment process, new employees tend to be self-motivated team players. The team has a tendency, therefore, to rate a new person as highly effective because they see an eagerness to learn that is perceived to be above average. However, the new employee has not yet exceeded expectations and the facilitator/trainer helps the team see that very high ratings could be inappropriate. A critical aspect of peer performance review training is the idea of observed behavior. The toughest job for the facilitator/trainer is to get the group to understand that the evaluation must be based on things that the group has actually observed. Opinions and feelings don t count. Being firm on this point removes fears about peer performance reviews becoming a great big team hug or, alternatively, an opportunity for revenge. One team member gave his teammate a 10 $out of a possible 40% because, as he said, I don t like the SOB. The facilitator/trainer quickly asked for observable behavior that would back up the rating. When there wasn t any; the rating had to come up. The benefit, of course, is the learning that occurs: even if team members don t like each other, they can learn to work together. Team members are also asked to provide documentation of the peer s performance. She does good work or he lets us down a lot are not acceptable statements to back up a rating. Instead, the facilitator/trainer asks team members to provide real examples or statistics to back up their score. Quality assurance has logged only two defects against her all year and he has been absent 12 days this year are examples of good documentation of behavior. The group must understand that this observed behavior should be for the previous 12 months. This eliminates the "halo effect" of a team member who cleans up his act just before a review. The ratings should also be based on behavior that is the norm, not exceptions $good or bad%. One now classic example involved an employee who "mooned" a group of auditors in the plant. While this was certainly exceptional behavior, it did cause the team to have to evaluate how appropriate the employee's behavior was in other, less dramatic situations. Copyright, 1993, CEATH Company page 6

7 During training, some teams must come to grips with the fact that they do not know each other's job well. This is particularly true in teams where members have diverse responsibilities. The facilitator/trainer helps the team understand that, in the absence of concrete evidence, team members should plan to start with an average rating during the review and then be moved by evidence they hear from other members of the group. These teams also learn that the manager may have more input than other members of the group. For example, one engineering manager asked to go last during a review. When his turn came, he gave the individual a considerably lower score than the other members of the team. As the facilitator/trainer helped the group work through the differences, it became apparent that the manager had data that suggested the individual was not producing quality results. This was data to which the rest of the group had no access. In the face of the manager's documentation, the rest of the group lowered its rating and wanted to go even lower than the manager & given the data, they believed the manager's rating was too high. The final result was a rating close to the manager's original score, but, in the process, the team learned a lot about what the manager expected and that their teammate would need considerable help from them. Often the facilitator/trainer has to work on helping the group understand consensus. Even though team members have been trained, they sometimes have difficulty reaching consensus about a team member s score. Often the teams will quibble over tenths of a point, even though the final result would not be affected. The facilitator/trainer teaches the group that consensus means a decision that all can support $even though it may not be everyone s first choice% and that all have had sufficient opportunity to influence. One final point made by the facilitator/trainer is that there should be "no surprises" during a review. If a team saves up data all year long and then dumps it on the individual during the review, the team has failed. Instead, once expectations for team performance are known, the each member of the team has the responsibility to help other members maximize performance. One team had a team meeting with an individual before the review session to make sure that the individual was clear on some of the performance issues the team saw. We often use the finger-pointing metaphor. When you point your finger at someone, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself. Instead of dumping surprises on the individual, the team should be thinking about its own failures to communicate expectations and to be supportive of the individual. A Process for Continuous Improvement Once teams are trained on the peer performance review process, the actual reviews begin. Reviews are scheduled to occur so that they will be complete by an employee's hiring anniversary date. For the review session, the employee provides his or her own documentation for their performance during the past year. This gives the individual a chance to remind the group of strengths, accomplishments and data that will help create an objective review. The individual may, if desired, present the documentation to the group before the review commences. Once the data has been presented, the employee leaves. Most people do not even present the data in person; they simply let the data speak for itself. The team then goes through each of the Ten Standards of Excellence, taking the individual's data into account, and reaches a consensus rating for each element. One person is assigned scribe duties to record salient comments for each standard. This process takes anywhere from an hour and a half to $in some difficult cases% four hours. Once the review session is complete, the scribe's notes are transcribed onto the review form. Then, just before the feedback session, the group reviews what has been written, and, after any corrections are made, each member of the review team signs the review. The individual is then asked to join the group. Copyright, 1993, CEATH Company page 7

8 During the feedback session, the group strives to make the individual feel comfortable. All members of the group sit around the table & the individual does not sit at the head or on the opposite side of the table from the rest of the group. The comments and rating for each category are read by a member of the group chosen at random. The individual is encouraged to ask for clarification and group members frequently interject comments to help the individual understand the thinking the team had done about each issue. Some feedback sessions are admittedly difficult. But the ultimate result is invariably a clearer sense of the team's expectations for performance and a commitment from each member of the team to help each individual continue to improve. One team had a problem with an individual's housekeeping around his workstation on the assembly line. Their expectations were that the area would be kept much more tidy. Yet this same employee was rated very highly on productivity. The conclusion? The team communicated their admiration to the individual for his ability to complete tasks, but they also clearly articulated their expectations for cleanliness. "I know you don't like this one," one team member told him, "But it's true and we all agreed to it. Either you're going to have to quit fifteen minutes before the end of the shift to clean up, or we're all going to have to come down the assembly line to help you out." The facilitator/trainer's job is critical here. By creating a supportive atmosphere and by insuring that all comments are fact-based and directed at observed behavior $not at the individual%, the facilitator/trainer helps the individual take the feedback and use it to learn and improve. "For me, there are no negatives in the feedback session," said one facilitator/trainer. "There are only opportunities to improve even more." The Rest of the Story As we reflect back, we have been very pleased with the results of our peer performance review efforts. We have been fortunate in that managers have demonstrated their commitment to the program by choosing to do the peer performance on themselves before taking the idea to the rest of the organization. Today, some managers are even serving as trainer/facilitators for review and feedback sessions. Principles of Success Peer Performance Review 1. Prior to hiring, screen job applicants for team compatibility and desire to improve. 2. Support a team culture, which includes: The belief that everyone wants to improve, Teams that are committed to helping their members improve, and Management that supports self-directed teams. 3. Prior to implementing peer performance reviews, insure that teams are mature: Do extensive training in team skills such as interpersonal communication, group process, problem solving and effective meeting techniques. Allow time for teams to develop. Team expectations are now firmly established as organizational cultural norms at the company. By carefully implementing peer performance reviews, we have been able to build an atmosphere that is supportive and yet demanding of performance. Most significant is that team expectations are continuously improving. What a team expects of itself this year will not be good enough next year. An employee who continues to perform at the same level can expect to see his or her scores erode over time as the new performance standards are met less frequently. For us, the most tangible result came with the announcement that product which had been built overseas was being brought back to be manufactured in the two plants. The company s president made it very clear to the employees of both plants that their productivity, skill and dedication to quality were a Copyright, 1993, CEATH Company page 8

9 significant factors in the decision to return the production stateside. Our efforts had played a significant role in the success of the two plants that we had been involved with. As we were leaving the review session with the engineers, the engineering manager pulled us aside. "I don't know what happened," he told us. "But all my people are happy, getting along, coming up with ideas. I don't know what happened, but I like it." "Thanks," we replied. "We like it too." Need help improving your team s performance? Please contact us at: CEATH Company 1788 Highway 1016, Suite B Berea, KY Tel. $859% mail@ceath.com Internet: A version of this article appeared in Training and Development, the Journal of the American Society for Training and Development $ASTD%, Volume 49, Number 7, July Copyright, 1993, CEATH Company page 9