Results-based evaluation: Most agree so why is it so hard?

 

     I don't know of anyone (though it is possible someone exists) who doesn't agree that the most important thing with a job is to get the results when they are needed and of the quality that is needed. This is an expansion of the phrase "results-based evaluation". Who really cares how it is done (with the caveats, of course, using only legal means and not abusing or harassing anyone) or where it is done or how the work hours are distributed as long as the assignment is completed as needed with good quality?

     That's what is said. The reality differs as I am sure most are aware. That reality is the foundation of so much conflict about remote vs. hybrid vs. RTO. It is the foundation of 4-day workweeks vs. 5-day workweeks (or 3-day or 6-day). 

     So, we have an ideal of a results-based evaluation and we have the reality of wanting control over the process. Perhaps not to the extent of micromanaging but, still, with someone making sure that a certain number of hours are worked, perhaps during certain time windows, and with the ability of the physical (or at least remote video) observation of work being done.

     In my opinion, there IS a difference between a new, inexperienced, employee's need for management versus that of an experienced person with a good track record. A new person many not know how to proceed from the beginning to the finish line. They need someone to give them a framework and to be able to make sure they are not getting lost, leaving the framework, or skewing the schedule and duties in a way that results end up being unreliable. This is not an indication of a bad employee. It is an indication of an employee who does not have the experience, and knowledge, of being able to self-manage to reach the objectives.

     But how about people who ARE experienced and have a track record that indicates they know how to get to the finish line and make their objectives? Rationalization breaks down at this point. No matter what angle a person looks at it, it ends up being a matter of TRUST. Each person's tasks are relied on by other layers who are relied upon by higher layers until it is a matter for the entire company or project. It can be scary to realize that you are being evaluated, in the greater part, based upon how well people, of whom you are responsible, perform. Fear and trust are confrontative values.

     Results-based evaluation should always be feasible -- whether the people are split in location or have to coordinate different schedules. First, the objective must be well, precisely, defined -- such that both parties know whether it has been achieved. Second, it is useful to BOTH parties to have mutually agreed-upon verifiable checkpoints such that both have confidence that progress is being made as needed. These checkpoints may be frequent for relatively inexperienced people or for complex projects. They may be very infrequent for very experienced people on projects which are testable, and deliverable, in isolation from other work.

     The various methods of dealing with pandemic isolation have proven that it can work. We know how it worked and that can work towards the future for continuing functionality. Only trust, and mutual work on synchronization, is needed.