The author is a member of the Business Coach Association in Hungary. More information about the Association is available here (the English language page is under construction).
I don’t think anyone having worked as a manager for any company in any profile whatsoever has had the luck to avoid being the target, or the executor, of PERFORMANCE-MEASURMENT (PM). This category seems to be an above-all factor in many an organisation, and even the survival of the company itself can depend on whether these figures meet the EXPECTATIONS.
Figures, charts and spreadsheets dominate. Headcount and HR-decisions are based on results from PM. But is there an alternative? Can top-notch executives be persuaded to apply other ideas and depart from these fundaments? This question can become an exceptionally exciting issue once a company (or, rather, its management) faces problems that cannot be solved by traditional methods, and when the decision is made to ask the assistance of a coach.
The boundaries between coaching and training are widely disputed, but I strongly believe in this scheme: if the issue is DOING THE RIGHT THINGS: that’s coaching. If the issue is DOING THINGS RIGHT: that’s training. So, when we try to address a performance-related issue, the first thing to identify is whether we really have a coaching-issue (i.e. a non-structured situation), or whether a down-to-earth training-programme will do the job (i.e. a well-structured situation, which can be handled by management-tools, and no real leadership-qualities are
needed). Naturally, a coach must be able to make the distinction between the two possibilities without too much uncertainty, although it must be admitted that there can be cases when the distinction is extremely difficult. Anyhow, in most cases the sphere of problems related to performance-measurement fall into the category best addressed by coaching, so I will consider this as a basic assumption. One thing is certain, though: whichever way, companies do require performance-measurement to be carried out at regular intervals, but the outcome and the authenticity of the result is highly dependent on the management’s ability to realise which approach, and which method, is required in the given circumstances. And often enough, the overall performance of the company will not reflect the statistical results obtained by mechanical performance-evaluation of departments or individual employees. This, in turn, will start a chain of effects and counter-effects that will ultimately spread throughout the organisation and force management-members to make decisions that are anything but suited to the REAL issue at hand. A vicious circle.
As a coach myself, it is usually the non-numerical, emotional and human-related factors that I consider decisive when a top manager turns to me saying: ”We have a problem with our performance-measurement.” In such cases I usually start with mapping some seemingly unrelated areas and topics, such as: organisation size, decision-levels, communication-channels, education-levels, cultural differences, etc. The reason is simple: addressing a non-structured situation can easily provide surprises when it comes to getting to the bottom of the – no, not the problem, because it is NOT my task to find a solution to the problem; my task is to help my client change his perspective. Just like looking out another window.
What I usually find is that managers fail to realise that there are tremendous un-quantifiable factors that lead to quantifiable ups or downs in the company’s performance-chart. They are usually so pre-occupied with their daily worries (reporting to the mother-company, preparing presentations and other material to be used /and soon forgotten/ at endless meetings, etc.), that they fail to see even the most evident signs that could help them (and the company) perform better. They fail to note the hidden values and capabilities of employees, who are discouraged from making proposals or putting forth ideas. They fail to recognise the tremendous potential that ”company-cafeterias” can provide. They fail to accept the fact that moods, attitudes and mental orientations are key factors of performance – and none of these can be expressed numerically.
Following the pre-evaluation phase, and after having obtained an overall view of the human relations within the company, a responsible and professionally targeted coach can, and should, gradually create the sort of inter-action with his coachee that will enable the latter to change his paradigm, if necessary, and find his own way along the path.
