MEETING PEOPLE—THE GAMES WE PLAY

“People who enjoy meetings should not be in charge of anything”

--Thomas Sowell, American Writer and Economist

Please excuse my title. As they say in sports, there is a little ‘trickeration’ at work.  I really didn’t mean to imply that this blog was about the act of meeting people. No, in fact, I was using the word ‘meeting’ as a descriptive adjective—not a verb. My intent in this blog is to write about the types of people I have observed in the countless meetings I attended during my career. Just for grins, I use to classify my peers and others by virtue of their similar behaviors—sort of my own taxonomy of meeting participants.

As I wrote in my last blog, “meetings are the bane of most employees”.  Meetings, because they are necessary, however, are not going away. An efficient and effective meeting is a thing of beauty—both in design and execution. Unfortunately, the best designed meeting can be undermined by one or more of the participants. And, we all have been conspirators and co-conspirators in derailing a well designed meeting—sometimes consciously, sometimes unwittingly. I realize that to enumerate is to limit. Still, I want to share my personal taxonomy of meeting participants. This list is not intended to be exhaustive, empirical or even equitable. It is, simply, the product of my twisted world view of human nature.

In fact, my discussion of the types I am about to talk about often described me—or as the cartoon cat, Garfield, would say “I resemble that remark.” Still, in the spirit of the blissful blogger, I will tread on to the taxonomy. Ok, let’s leap into the world according to me. 

No doubt there are others that could be added to a list of meeting types. For example, the Slick, the Sly and theWicked  along with the Crackberry addict come to mind. 

However, I will list the types I have identified below and describe them to the best of my recollection. They are as follows: 

The Smoozer

The Socialite

The Socrates

The Silent

Understand, my friends, that this list was purely a creation of a fatigued and meeting addled mind—i.e., a mind, often, paying more attention to the participant’s behaviors than the presentations.

So let us get started. I did not list the most important participant in the meeting—the leader or boss. The leader/boss can be, either, a facilitator, referee or circus ringmaster. Armed with a clear agenda, s/he sets the tone for the meeting—the ambiance or climate. S/he can either follow or subvert the agenda. And, if there is no agenda; there is no meeting—just a gathering of people looking for reasons why they are sharing the same space and time. Without strong leadership, even a meeting with a clear agenda will devolve into a series of sideshows starring one or more of the participants I listed above as types. The leader facilitator makes sure that the meeting is not dominated by any one type of participant. Looking through the leader's eyes, here is how the particular types of participants might behave in a meeting.

The ‘Smoozer’ is usually recognized by his/her fixed gaze and ‘bobbing head’, signifying approval to any sound, word or statement uttered by the boss. Sometimes the smoozer even adds a sound element to his/her head gesture. The sound is usually a soft and purring “yes” –audible enough to be heard by the boss. Additionally, this type is very good at “summarizing” what the boss has said for the benefit of the 'less astute' in the meeting.

Yet, there is usually one type in the meeting who benefits from this summarization—that being the “Socialite”. He/she is so busy with their own agenda—i.e., cracking jokes, reliving the weekend or discussing their kids’ latest accomplishments—that sometimes they appear peeved, because the rest of the engaged participants are “talking too loud”. You can spot the ‘socialite’, most often, by his/her fixed smile and darting eyes. Their objective is to look engaged. As such, they, frequently, borrow the “bobbing head” routine of the ‘smoozer’. Yet, as we use to say, “Lights on, nobody home”.

Perhaps the most vexatious type is the “Socrates” or ‘know it all’.  This is the person who has positioned him/herself as the ‘keeper of all insight’ in the known universe. Until Socrates weights in, all perspectives are subject to doubt. Ironically, other meeting participants defer to this pompous and punctilious egotist. Socrates sometimes dominates dialogue and, at other times, is a sniper, waiting for the opportune time to attack and correct. The strange thing about the Socrates type is that they are often ‘right—but, more often, irrelevant’. He/she arbitrarily sets up a false premise, attacks or defends it and then ‘waxes eloquently’ on why the rest of the team should adopt this point of view. Interestingly enough, the Socrates type has the discipline “to keep his powder dry” until he/she sees an opening.

While the Socrates type can mimic the Silent type for a short period of time, they cannot sustain it. The Silent type can sit through a 3 hour meeting without saying a word; without head or body gesturing; without making a single contribution to the meeting agenda. In a sense, they are a selfish and cowardly lot. They subscribe to Abraham Lincoln’s old adage that “it is better to be thought a fool, then to open your mouth and prove it”. However, often they are the most opinionated and talkative among the team—after the meeting was adjourned. When asked, why they didn’t contribute? They will usually claim that everyone else was dominating the dialogue or, as one friend pointed out, they assert that they "didn't want to create waves". They are the turtles of the corporate world; sticking their necks out only to cross the road back to the coffee room.

In summary, I realize that the types of meeting participants do not always fall into such a neat and tidy taxonomy. Still, that is my point of view—and I’m sticking to it.

A Pain in the Rear—Meeting-itis?

“Meetings are an addictive, highly self-indulgent activity that corporations and other large organizations habitually engage in only because they cannot masturbate”

 Dave Barry quotes

The bane of most employees is the dreaded ‘staff meeting’—a recurring and, seemingly, indestructible corporate ritual. The team, department, functional, regional and/or company ‘rah rah’ meeting annually consumes an inordinate amount of employee time and energy.  And, the cost to the enterprise can be measured in ‘real dollars’. Assume ten people, earning over $100K per year, have been sequestered for a four hour meeting.  Even before the costs for the continental breakfast, the box / hot lunch and the afternoon snacks are added in, think about the $20K in ‘staff time’ already spent. Specifically, assuming each employee in the meeting is earning about $50per hour x 10 employees=$500 per hour x 4 hrs=$20K of sunk investment for the meeting. I calculate ‘staff time’ because, if not in the meeting, the staff would/should be working towards organizational goals and objectives.  If the meeting is facilitative towards more efficiently and effectively meeting stated goals and objectives—then meeting time and expense is a good investment; if not, the meeting is ‘time off task’ and an example of squandering scarce resources. Not all meetings are time wasters, some are useful and necessary. In my mind, the four types of necessary staff meetings are:

1. Planning,  

2. Calibration,

3. Informational and, the occasional,

4. Motivational (inspirational) meeting.  

The Planning meeting should be strategic in nature and designed to articulate the goals and objectives the enterprise will seek to achieve over a defined period of time. The outcome of the meeting will be to align behavior/performance to support the course of action the organization plans to follow over the short term (year) or long term (3-5 years). Planning is based on historical data, trends and performance against prior period goals; taking into consideration environmental changes in demographics, competitive framework and the talent, skills and abilities of your current workforce. A good Planning meeting is based on a realistic assessment of the organization’s ability to achieve its stated goals. The outcome of the Planning meeting should be goals that are realistic and time bound. Setting goals that look good but are unrealistic creates, over time, a cynicism in the both the stockholders and shareholders mind. Goal setting is not about ‘optics’. Goal setting is about setting targets that can be reached—not targets that are designed to appease and/or over promise.

  

The next necessary meeting is the Calibration meeting. This is where we should be measuring progress against goals. The ideal frequency, in my estimation, for this type of meeting is quarterly. If we meet too soon, not enough data or information is available to make sound decisions; if we meet too late, little or nothing can be done to alter the course we are on—put another way, “you can’t un-ring a bell.” A timely calibration meeting will allow the organization to reallocate resources, to deploy or redeploy talent and/or to “cut our losses.”

The Informational meeting should be devoted to just that—giving out new and important information about organizational policies, procedure and practices that impact the way people do their jobs. Consequently, this type of meeting need not consume a lot of presentation time. Presentation decks and overheads should be streamlined, simple and direct. Please avoid the PowerPoint orgy of lights, sound and motion. Shoot straight. Tell’em what you’re  going to talk about; talk about it; and, then tell’em what you just talked about—i.e., introduction, body and summary. Leave some time for questions and answers. Request that participants write down their questions on the 3x5 note cards handed out before the meeting started.

  

And finally, the Motivational meeting or what I refer to as the ‘rah rah’ meeting. These types of meetings are the staple of Sales organizations. Outrageous themes, loud, bone jarring, music along with elaborate production sets, guest speakers and plenty of “we are the greatest, nothing like us ever was” speeches characterize these gatherings. Based on how I describe these meetings, you might be surprised that I list them as necessary. Well, they are necessary—every 2 to 3 years. People need to feel a part of something—a movement or a dynasty ! Work needs to be about more than coming into the office, going through the daily routine and feeling like the Charles Schultz’s Peanut character who said, “Achieving something around here is like wearing dark pants and peeing on yourself—you get a warm feeling, but nobody notices.” Well, somebody will notice at a properly designed motivational meeting. Employees get to interact with each other, trade ‘war stories’ and pump each other up. The atmosphere can be both festive and focused!

In this blog, I have described, to the best of my recollection, the meetings I sat through during my corporate career. My next blog will discuss the types of participants I saw at these meetings.

OMG! .... NOT ANOTHER REORGANIZATION?!!

“We trained hard—but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing. And what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization"

--Gaius Petronius Arbiter, 1st Century A.D.

  

Look, I know that not all reorganizations are bad, useless and/or political ‘eye wash’. A well thought out reorganization can and has saved many an enterprise.

Still, what causes an enterprise to consider reorganization? Is something not working the way it should? Has something changed--our customer base, our strategy, our mission and/or our vision? Will reorganizing improve our chances of survival or result in an increased profitability? Or, to use a football down and distance analogy--is it 3rd and 25 and the only play we can call is "punt"? And, finally, why do most employees cringe at the thought of reorganization?

Well I would submit that all of the above are both plausible and real. Yet, I think that in today's "zoom zoom" world, the “We Must Change " mantra is the reason and rationale behind most of the reorganization mania. For the record, I am not suggesting that all reorganization initiatives are simply knee jerk reactions to the "we must change" mandate. No, there are examples like Ford Motor Company who realized that they must change or die. But, out of the countless number of reorganizations launched each year, the Fords' might be the exception and not the rule.

Why, you ask, is the Change mandate so pervasive and powerful a motive? To date, I have not found a better explanation than that given by William Bridges, in his landmark book, “Transitions, Making Sense of Life’s Changes”

Here goes his profound insight:

 “Modern societies are the first in history in which people have been rewarded for keeping the level of societal change high. Most other times and places have rewarded and honored people for protecting the society’s continuities; but our society rewards change in the name of “innovation”. Our economy depends upon it, and if the innovation ceased, our economy as a whole—and, of course, most people’s individual careers—would fall apart.

So we’ve got a change-dependent economy and a culture that celebrates creativity and innovation. There is no way that our careers won’t  be punctuated by frequent changes, each of which demands a transition from an old way of doing things and old identity to a new one. And there is no way that these transitions won’t  take a significant toll on our productivity as we temporarily siphon off energy and time from performing our jobs to making the transitions. If that temporary displacement of energy happens to only a few individuals, it is their  problem; but when it occurs on a large scale, as it does during big reorganizations and mergers, the individual problem of career transition becomes the organization’s problem, in the form of “ reduced productivity”, “absenteeism”, “increased defects” or “turnover”.”

He sounds a little bit like old Gaius P. Arbiter back in the 1^st century AD—doesn’t he?

REVISITING THE MATRIX—WHO’S GOT THE DING DONG!?

"No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other.”

Luke 16:13

The above cited biblical verse, sort of, sums up the biggest issue facing the organizational management structural design known as Matrix management.  If you’ve worked in any modern day Fortune 500 company, you’ve no doubt been in the ‘Matrix’. In fact, most corporate organizations today are organized around some variation of the matrix structure. Basically, the ‘Matrix’ is organized around so-called support Functions in which employees with similar skills and/or professional training function like campus frats or sororities. Often, these employees pledge their loyalty first to their ‘functional boss’.  And, why shouldn’t they? Ultimately and contrary to what the policy says about shared evaluations, it is the ‘functional boss’ who will control their money, upward mobility and careers. Yet, once deployed, functional employees must quickly become adept at pleasing another boss; a line boss with a P & L—who, also, has some organizational ‘juice’ and power that must be reckoned with. Some well known examples of support functions are Finance, Engineering, R & D, Sales and HR.

 These Functional employees may be assigned to different business units and report directly into a ‘line or business boss’—as well as a ‘functional boss’ of equal status. I have been told that the Line boss tells you what to do and Functional boss tells you how to do it. While attempting to show who ‘owns’ whom, organizational charts  can be rendered undecipherable—with  a dizzying  array of solid and dotted lines competing for attention. Usually, however, the two ‘bosses’ work it out. They are, most likely, friendly—if not cordial; they are usually peers who respect each other; they will seek alignment and agreement before risking animosity and acrimony over disagreeing about a shared ‘direct report’. Geez, lest one forgets, they are members of the same ‘Leadership Lodge’. In essence, they’ve learned to share ‘the ding-dong of power’.

But, what about the Project Manager, who carries the portfolio of the Big Boss; who has to manage employees from multiple support functions; who has to meld a disparate group of functional experts into a cohesive project team; who has an unforgiving timeline and scarce resources –what about him or her? If the Bible warns about serving two masters, then, one would surmise that a third master is not really a master after all. So often, being a Project Manager in a matrix management organization is tantamount to “herding cats”. Not only must he/she manage a team with skill sets different from his/her; he/she must find a way to establish measures of effectiveness that are rigorous enough to ensure each member contributes their expertise to the best of their functional ability. He/she must know enough to evaluate their performance as well as enough not to be ‘snowed’ by functional jargon and terminology that doesn’t “move the peanut forward”.

And, as a former boss of mine often said, “I don’t need people who can describe the peanut or weigh the peanut—I just want the ones who know how to move the peanut forward.” In other words,  getting the job done is the main thing. Still, alas, the beleaguered project manager is left with the task of getting individuals from different parts—and, often, different time zones of the enterprise. Well, first,  to get off on the right foot, the project manager must “take the order” correctly. In essence, he/she must be absolutely clear on what outcomes the organization desires from the project being launched. Basically, he/she must find out ‘what good looks like” to the sponsoring ‘powers.’ Next, make sure the Function offers up individuals that are viewed as either high potential (the young upwardly mobile) or high professional (the institutional memory keepers). A mix of these two types of employees would be ideal. Their collective input and diversity of perspectives will guarantee that problems are viewed from a variety of different perspectives. It is only with these divergent views that we can expand the solution spaces.

Finally, the Project manager must encourage development of a set of decision rules to be used as the initiative goes forward. And, the most important decision rule is, “who has the performance evaluation “ding dong?” Put another way, who appraises the performance of the project team members? I would submit that it should be—no must be—the actual Project Manager. The Functional boss is too far away from the action and is often influenced by factors other than actual contribution to the Project.  More importantly, as Michael Leboeuf said, in his seminal book, Greatest Management Principle, GMP, “…people don’t do what you inspect or expect—they do what you reward.” Got it—they do what you reward! 


An equally important decision rule that must be hammered out has to do with the allocation and expenditure of resources. The Project Manager must be given both responsibility and authority. Authority boils down to who can spend what and when. 

These two decision rules will improve the probability of success for most projects. In essence, the Project Manager needs the two most important powers in the corporate universe--i.e., the "power to define ( what good looks like) and the power to punish (what is defined as not acceptable behavior).

Well, until next time, “that’s my point of view and I am sticking to it.”

Personal Mastery--The Journey to Competency

“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light that most frightens us…”

--quoted by Nelson Mandela, 1994 Inaugural Speech

I mentioned in my last blog that 'no matter how gifted or talented, nobody comes into a job fully up to speed'. It just will not happen.  Nope. Won’t happen. In fact, there is a definite process for attaining competency. And, for the record, competency is the quality of being adequately or well qualified physically and/mentally for a particular undertaking. In my experience, the gaining of competence involves awareness, understanding and mastery.

Several years ago, I heard this process broken down into four phases. The four phases were described as Unconscious Incompetence, Conscious Incompetence, Unconscious Competence and, finally, Conscious Competence. Allow me to elaborate on each of the phases as it relates to mastering a certain task or combination of tasks-- i.e., a job.

We come into a job not knowing what we don’t know. This is Unconscious Incompetence. Simply put, “I don’t know what I don’t know." This is the period of trial and error and ‘fake it till you make it’. We project a confident demeanor; we pretend we knew a particular approach was risky’; we put forth points of view intended to impress—yet devoid of certainty and/or facts. During this phase, feedback is intense and swift. Our learning curve is steep and fraught with anxiety. Yet, it is during this phase that well- meaning colleagues and good bosses come to the rescue. They point out, in very clear terms, what we need to know to be successful in the job. With their help, we are on track to the next phase of gaining competence—Conscious Incompetence.

In this new phase, we are, at least, beginning to ‘know what we didn’t know’. At this point, we become conscious of the voids in our knowledge, skills and abilities needed to do the job in an acceptable manner. Conscious Incompetence is a critical phase in our development. Because, it is in this phase that we are able to identify and isolate specific areas of development needed to be successful in this job. It is during this phase that the performance appraisal process becomes more than just perfunctory. To use an athletic term, this were we start to become “fundamentally sound”. We begin to grasp the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the job—both ‘the what’ and ‘the how’ aspects of performance. The job requirements begin to make more sense to us. Heck, we are even able to help the ‘newbie’ who, like us not too long ago, is trying to get their ‘head around’  the what and how of doing the job.

And, as we begin to share our knowledge of job requirements with others, a strange thing happens to us. We become aware of what we are good at in performing our job. This zone of awareness is moving us towards Conscious Competence. During this phase we exude a confidence in our ability to do what is expected. We take initiative without getting approval at each step of the process; we see opportunities for improvement; and, we feel the job getting smaller and less daunting. Out of the ashes of uncertainty, fear of failure and just plain ignorance, we rise like the mythical Phoenix bird. As the great boxer, Muhammad Ali, once said, we are “not cocky, but confident”. We think that we know what we know.

But, alas, the next phase moves us back into the unconscious realm— more specifically, Unconscious Competence. Fact is that we don’t know all that we really know. So much of how we perform our jobs becomes rote, routine and automatic. This is revealed to us when we struggle to explain to people what we really do on a daily basis, and what our job really consists of and requires from us. We are in that phase where an objective party who has observed us can reveal us to ourselves. This is the phase where instincts informed by experiences kicks in to enhance our performance; this is where we begin to question how we “pulled it off”; this is where we are becoming a bit bored--because we have seen every business cycle, every seasonality surprise and every annual crisis. If not aware of what’s happening, we can easily slip into cynicism. We don’t have the time and/or patience to deal with those in the earlier phases of competency development. This is where we should be looking for new challenges. Look for challenges that involve a new role in the existing job. For example, consider becoming a mentor or  moving out of your comfort zone by transitioning to a different role.

Employee Development: The Manager’s Mission

After reading my last blog on Performance Evaluations, one of my blog followers suggested that I address the real purpose behind performance evaluation—i.e., the continuous improvement and development of the employee.  His suggestion was spot on!

 In the Performance Evaluation blog, my objective was to share with the employee an approach that might be useful and effective in dealing with the boss. My observations and suggestions in that blog dealt more with mental preparation and positioning perspectives that might be helpful to the employee. However, now, it is time to delve into the real aims and objectives of the performance evaluation process.

Contrary to popular belief, performance evaluation is not, necessarily, designed to prune your organization of the lowest performing employees. Its primary purpose is not to “rank and yank”. Sure enough, one of the outcomes of a well designed performance management system is the forced ranking of employees based on their ‘body of work’. Still, the primary objective, I would submit, of a well designed and implemented Performance Management system is to ensure the continual development of the organization’s human capital—their people. That’s right; development should be intentional—not incidental.

If you are ever close enough to HR professionals, you will hear them spout the three words that summarize their key organizational helping tasks—Attract, Develop and Retain [ADR] talent. If these three tasks are done well, the organization should be positioned to meet current and future business challenges with the appropriate number, type and caliber of talent. Note, that I said these are key helping tasks that HR is essentially measured against when determining the function’s effectiveness. In fact, HR is just one of the partners in Attracting, Developing and Retaining employees.  In reality, the organization, the boss, and HR must function together to achieve a competitive advantage leveraging ADR goals. Under Developing employees, the boss must take the lead. The boss must understand the old adage that “people join a company and quit a boss” is more than just a turn of a phrase—its reality.

Now, we come to the real purpose of performance appraisals/evaluations. First and foremost, the boss must be held responsible for observing and appraising for the purpose of developing the employee. No employee comes into the job-no matter how gifted and/or talented- fully up to speed. There are new expectations, people and technical competencies that must be introduced, understood and then mastered. The boss is responsible for guiding the employee through this evolution. Ongoing feedback, formal evaluations and on-the-job training are the tools the boss must use to achieve this goal of employee development.  To be effective at developing the employee, the boss must be an open and honest communicator of both compliments and constructive criticism.

Remember, I said in the last blog that performance evaluations/appraisals should be viewed as development opportunities—not definitive events. Unfortunately, too many bosses are cowards when it comes to “shooting straight” with the employee. They tell HR, their colleagues and even some other direct reports how they really feel about a certain direct report; they often speak in vague and nebulous terms and/or use parables that can be interpreted any number of ways by the employee. They are cowards, because, when given the opportunity to give direct and honest feedback to the employee in question, they become ‘mush mouthed’.  Sure, its tough to sit across from a person who is coiled, anxious and worried about getting a ‘bad evaluation’.  But, hey sports fans, the employee deserves to hear what he/she needs to do to get better.

Hiding behind vague and overused labels like “not strategic enough”, “lacks fire in the belly”, “needs to drive more for results” is a cop-out, pure and simple. Of course, share the What they are lacking—but, hasten to add the How they can improve addendum. Development of employees, therefore, should be 'Job #1' for the boss. Failure to develop employees who have capabilities and show a desire to improve should reflect poorly on the boss in question. Employees are not disposable units. They are organizational assets that must be managed as such. If the Plant Manager was not using the maintenance function and throwing out equipment because of occasional malfunctions, somebody in HQ would want to talk to him/her-right away! Far too many so-called supervisor default to the HR function to handle [dispose of] the failed employee who has not been developed [not maintained].

By the way, this is why in so many organizations HR has earned the rap of being the ‘hatchet men/women’.  In any organization where the HR function has this rap it, most likely, deserves it.

Performance Evaluation: Flight, Fight or Flex?

Outside of the ‘make it or break it’ second interview, probably the most tense and anxiety ridden time in an employee’s professional life is the dreaded annual performance evaluation. A lot rides on the outcome of these formal encounters with one’s boss. In many cases, an employee’s future with the company, their annual merit increase and/or their potential rating are ‘in play’. How does one mentally prepare for this important event? What, if any strategy, will be effective in convincing the boss that your efforts were value added and impactful? How does one disagree with the boss’s evaluation of their performance without appearing defensive and self-serving?  How do you accept constructive and career building feedback that, when articulated by the boss, stings the psyche? All good questions, for sure. Let’s take a run at trying to explicate the dreaded performance evaluation session.

First, any good performance evaluation process is not an annual event. It is continual, timely and constructive feedback given when needed. Any boss who is into ‘catching you doing something wrong’ and mentally filing it away to be used in the so-called annual evaluation is operating ‘above his/her pay grade’. Good supervisors are more concerned about developing the employee’s skill set so that strategic company goals are met. Hence, a good supervisor will insure that the employee is given timely, clear and concise feedback when needed. Assuming the employee has the knowledge, skill, and ability to perform the tasks and responsibility of the position, corrective actions based on feedback should not be a problem. However, if the employee is “over their head” in the job, the boss must be courageous and confident enough to work with HR to find, if possible, a better placement within the organization—if such is available. Putting an employee who lacks the knowledge, skills and ability to do the job on a Performance Improvement Plan is tantamount to a ‘stay of execution’. 90 days or 900 days will not improve the performance of an employee lacking the ability to do the job.

 Now, back to answering the questions posed above. Specifically, how does one mentally prepare for the encounter? The most important step in mental preparation is to put the event in perspective. In other words, think about the session as developmental opportunity and not as a definitive event. Viewing the session as developmental allows you to go into the conversation expecting to receive constructive feedback. Any evaluation session that focuses only on your strengths shortchanges you and undermines your ability to become better in the current or future jobs. Even before the formal session and without equivocation tell the boss that you see yourself as a top performer and are open to being rigorously managed as such--every day.  What this implies is that you are willing to take blunt and often times critical feedback so necessary to getting better in your current position and reaching your career goals. If you approach the evaluation with fear and trepidation, a mental block caused by emotional tension arises-creating an inability to think of something you normally can and have done. In a word, you become defensive. Neither a defensive nor an offensive posture is helpful in becoming mentally prepared for the evaluation.

Employing the ‘developmental approach’ allows you to frame a strategy based on honesty, integrity and truth. You are able to honestly assess the quality of your performance against goals; possess the integrity to admit the “missed opportunities”; and, be truthful about reasons you did or didn’t reach your stated goals. So, the going in strategy is based on disarming the boss—who, most likely, is prepared to argue with you about accepting your shortcomings. Once the session begins, listen very carefully and take notes; try to isolate the performance deficiency the boss is alluding to or talking, specifically, about; ask questions only for clarification and/or deeper understanding—not as challenges to his/her assessment. Finally, after listening intently, without interrupting, rephrase what you heard; ask if you accurately decoded what he/she was saying. If there is agreement that you heard what was intended, respond only to those points that are unclear to you and/or are based on incomplete information. If the problem is incomplete information on the boss’s part, you, more than likely, are the blame for failure to post him/her in a timely fashion. Accept the responsibility for failure to post and request that you be allowed to provide him/her with the missing information. Finally, if it appears as though the boss is inflexible and wrong, agree to disagree—and ask how this situation can be remedied. Throughout this session, you must stay on strategy—with poise, presence and clear projection of your objectives. Lest you think that I believe the boss is omnipotent, let me hasten to add that there are some rater errors that you should be aware of that can affect your performance rating. 

These rater errors, according to Robert L. Mathis and John H. Jackson, in the seminal textbook, Human Resources Management, Twelfth Edition   include Varying Standards, “where bosses apply different standards and expectations for employees performing similar jobs”; Recency and Primacy Effects or ‘what have you done for me lately?’ Rater Bias, occurs “when a rater’s values or prejudices distort the rating. Such bias may be unconscious or quite unintentional”—but they still negatively impact; Halo and Horns Effect, “when a rater scores an employee high [Halo Effect] on all job criteria because of performance in one area…or [Horns Effect] which occurs when a low rating on one characteristic leads to an overall low rating”; Contrast Error, “which is the tendency to rate people relative to others rather than against performance standards. For example, if everyone else performs at a mediocre level, than a person performing somewhat better may be rated as “excellent because of the contrast effect”; and, finally- to me, the most arbitrary one and pernicious when combined with Rater Bias-the Similar-to-Me/Different-from-Me Errors, where “raters are influenced by whether people show characteristics that are the same as or different from their own”. Now, perhaps, you may have benefited from or been victimized by one or more of these rater errors. Just remember, rater bias is a two edged sword—cutting both ways. And, it always depends on “whose ox is being gored”! The Truth shall set you free!