Assigned Goals & Some Feedback on Poor Performance

Did you ever receive a performance review indicating you had done absolutely no work on an assigned goal?  I have.

Do you usually set your own goals, or are your goals assigned to you? Do you easily accept any goals assigned to you?   I’ve struggled with this in the past when I wasn’t fully bought in, but over the years I became better at accepting assigned goals.  There were occurrences when I didn’t think the goals were fair or valid, and I put little effort to completing them.  One time I received a written performance appraisal stating exactly that.

Career Beginnings

I began my career writing computer code as a Cobol programmer.  I progressed well in the IT organization of the former New Brunswick Telephone Company. As my skills and ambitions grew, I decided I wanted to work in sales and marketing, so I took a position titled Application Analyst, which was a great job, although I didn’t fully realize it at the time. What appealed to me was that I would support sales people when they discussed technical solutions with customers, and this experience would enable me to transition to a sales and marketing position at a later date.

Using my technical skills, which were current at the time, I supported some customer software and hardware applications, and I accompanied sales people to discuss the art of the possible. I also performed some internal systems support.  There was tremendous variety in the job, and I learned a great deal, including the ability to manage multiple competing priorities. This is what I most appreciate looking back at the role.  

Very Direct Feedback

One year when planning my upcoming annual performance goals with my manager Phil, I was assigned the task of transferring an internal software application from a minicomputer to some other unspecified hardware, in order to speed up the remaining applications.  I was informed emphatically that my budget for this was zero. Zero.

I didn’t bother to clarify.  I didn’t seek to understand.  I decided he wasn’t serious. This goal clearly was not fair or valid. Then six months later I received my mid-year performance review.

In that review I received good comments in all areas but one, where the written comments indicated ‘Jim has done nothing to migrate the SAM system off the VS65 minicomputer.” That was accurate.  I guess more senior managers were more serious about getting this work done than I realized. (I still have that written review.  It’s a good reminder for me.)

After receiving this feedback, I interviewed some of the more senior managers to understand this better. I learned that the SAM system had been hogging system resources, and for many years there had been desire to migrate the application to another platform.  But it never got done, it never became a priority, it remained as an unglamorous piece of work, and frustration had mounted.

Additionally, the more senior managers knew that we had some decommissioned hardware that could operate the application on its own, although some complementary hardware would be needed.  So, I worked with some technicians and we got the work done, not without some of the twists, turns and surprises that occur with most IT projects.

Conclusion

It’s great when we can select our own goals. However, often organizations assign goals to people and work teams. Well aligned goals support other organizational objectives.

As leaders, we need to communicate clearly and frequently on the reasons goals were selected and assigned, and we need to communicate frequently on progress, and observed behaviors that will lead to goal attainment.

As team members, it is best to understand how assigned goals fit with other organizational objectives.  Regardless, as team members we do need to accept responsibility for working to achieve assigned goals.

Meetings – Managing Attendees & Disruptors

In July I delivered an hour of training on running effective meetings for a group in Saint John. Attendees were well engaged with lots of questions and comments.The training was based on this e-book I published earlier in 2022 https://amzn.to/3E2XQKF

We talked quite a lot about the subtle dynamics present during work meetings.  For example, some attendees new to their companies were not sure how to manage some awkward situations. Longer term employees don’t typically struggle in these situations as experience has taught them to understand the dynamics of the room well. I will offer a couple of examples.    

One participant described a situation where an attendee regularly prolongs the conclusion of team meetings with items not on the agenda. The attendee will often launch into long, passionate, descriptions of opportunities or problems. I searched for a term that describes such behavior. Interrupter or disruptor seem insufficient, but I think will have to do.  “Nudnik” showed up as an interesting option, but I believe it’s too harsh. Here is that definition https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/nudnik

When such interruptions occur, other attendees, while remaining respectful, can be left wondering “why are we discussing this topic now?” I’ve been there and experienced these scenes.  I’m sure you’ve experienced similar scenes. An attendee can have tremendous interest and regard for his topic and needs everyone in the room to understand why.

How An Agenda Helps

How can you manage such situations? First, I’m a proponent of sticking to a planned agenda, and only allowing significant deviation when the group concurs. There should always be a stated purpose to the meeting and an agenda with time estimates, even if it’s very simple. For example, the purpose might be to address a revenue gap and the agenda might be to;

1)     define the revenue gap (15 minutes),

2)     brainstorm ideas (20 minutes), and

3)     select three or four ideas to act on (20 minutes).

The meeting leader should stay true to the agenda as it’s an implied agreement with the invitees. If the agenda needs significant variation once the meeting is in progress, the leader should get the concurrence of those assembled. That demonstrates respect for all attendees, and once the purpose is achieved, the meeting can and should conclude.

How “One Thing at A Time” Helps

As a practice, the meeting leader should also assert the principle contained in parliamentary procedure of “one thing at a time.” In the sample agenda above, that means completing the agenda item defining the revenue gap, and only then progressing and completing the agenda item on brainstorming, and only then progressing to and completing the agenda item of selection of 3 or 4 ideas. Manage the closure of each item in order to avoid revisiting the closed items. You likely don’t want to be entirely rigid in enforcing this, and there may be some late breaking brainstorm ideas which you want to capture, however a meeting leader needs to show discipline and respect for the group in completing each item.

Such simple meeting discipline, and a history of adhering to an agenda and the collective will of the attendees, provide the meeting leader with the power to manage interruptions. The meeting leader may have position power to expect compliance, but the power granted and supported by the assembled group, in my opinion, is more valuable. Such granted power is referred to as referent power which derives from being respected and trusted.

 

Adhering to one thing at a time enables the leader to manage interruptions and distractions.

 

Name It, Assign It, Move On

Now back to the question of the disruptor prolonging the end of the meeting. If someone introduces a new topic for which he has great passion, and is generally interrupting meeting flow or preventing the meeting from ending, then there are a few ways the meeting leader can manage this.

Here is my preferred way. First, the disruptor is undoubtedly a valued member of the team and wishes to be heard.  Everybody wants to be heard and understood. The meeting leader can say ‘Luke, I think I see where you’re going, can you share this within a couple of minutes as we’ve completed our agenda for today?”

Should Luke exceed that time allotment or be on path to exceed the allotment, the meeting leader can say “I think we all agree that this is a problem we need to manage, so let’s define what information we will need to understand to choose an approach?” Then put that question to the group; what information will be needed. The meeting leader can take control.

If Luke then starts on a long description of the information requirements, then label it, assign it, and ask what other information is required. For example, the requirement could be that there is a perceived problem with accounts receivable. Name that for someone to research and define, assign it to someone, and move on. There are likely other informational needs. Name them, assign them with a delivery date, and move on.

By acknowledging the problem, labelling the steps required to assess the problem, and assigning the responsibility for the steps, Luke is respected and heard, the group has chosen an approach to assess and manage the problem area, and the meeting can end.  A leader might need to ask something like ”Luke will that enable us to make progress on this issue?” He may keep going, but others will feel free to depart.

Respecting Participants

These situations are tricky because we are dealing with people. People want to be heard, and need to be respected.

Another participant to my training indicated he was new to his company and the nature of his job in public relations required that he be very quick and responsive in managing demands and timelines. He described sitting in a meeting, receiving an urgent text about an issue, and recognizing that everyone he needed to consult with about the issue was in the room. He was unsure if he should interrupt to take advantage of their presence or send them an urgent email afterwards.

In our room we agreed his best approach in such a situation is to briefly interrupt and say something like “look before this group leaves, I have received an urgent message for which I need the input of everyone here.  Before we leave today, can we talk about this item?”

In this manner he can assert that he needs their input while not derailing the meeting and momentum. 

Who Is Most Likely To Interrupt?

When writing, I usually try to vary the pronouns I use for example using “he” sometimes, and “she” at other times.  However, in choosing the pronoun for the passionate meeting disruptor the choice was obvious. My point of view is supported by this article titled “Who tends to speak too much?”  According to this clinical psychologist in this Washington Post article. It’s us guys.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/02/18/men-interrupt-women-tokyo-olympics/