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.

Optimal work: Striving for the best with the least

 

     Work too much. Work too little. Have too little information.  Have too much information. Have not enough help. Have too many doing too much when not wanted. Too little pressure to complete. Too much pressure to complete. Too few tools. So many tools it becomes overly complex.

     There are all types of factors that are involved with being productive. Those factors are usually on a sliding scale and, often, they may be interdependent. The most challenging aspect is that every person has a different set of "calibrations" -- what they need for optimal work -- and may have to find those conditions through iteration rather than analysis.

     People often do this accidentally as they move through their careers. In much of the technological world, we have trained ourselves to ignore indications from our bodies as well as our psyches. What do we need versus what do we want? Am I actually still hungry or am I eating as a placeholder for something else? Will I really be able to be productive working another three hours or will I end up redoing the work in the morning after I have collapsed for a number of hours? We often don't know.

     We look for ways that our environment will provide us a framework to help us through these choices. There is nothing wrong with such a framework and companies that are endeavoring to provide such should be appreciated and applauded. But, in the end, what is good for one person may not be good for another and it still needs to be absorbed, and understood, by the mind and body.

     This is the point at which observation skills and experience come into play for leaders. Evaluate by results AND by the observed stress and happiness level (recognizing that some are really good at hiding such from themselves and others). Keep lines of communication clear. Err on the side of less pressure, information, and workload. Listen.

The Passenger Syndrome: Along for the ride

 

     I am not particularly fond of driving -- not because I mind doing it myself but because it is necessary to look five directions at once, at all times, to see what the rest of the traffic (in cars or on foot) are doing. Give me a road without other traffic and I am happy to head off for the hills and beyond. These conditions usually take place at night (or in adverse weather conditions -- in which case there is less traffic but it is necessary to watch those others even more carefully). Less traffic, easier on the eyes, and less likely to trigger my mild narcolepsy.

     But I can't always get my preferences -- so I drive along in the traffic as it is. I attempt to ignore the car behind me that is 10 feet away from my back bumper while driving at 60 mph. I try to anticipate what merging traffic is going to do and attempt to leave them a proper gap so they can merge. I negotiate changing lanes with some cars going 15 miles per hour over the speed limit and those few who go five to ten miles an hour UNDER the limit. And I usually get to my destination. At which point, my wife usually says "that was easy". Spoken like a true passenger.

     This "passenger syndrome" happens in many parts of our lives.  Business, personal, recreational, sport spectator and player, during cooking and cleaning, and wherever one person is doing the active portion while others are there to enjoy the endpoints.

     There are certainly situations where multiple people work on a project and it is quite possible to appreciate what each person has done -- or to consider what others are doing as less important and less difficult. That reaction is based on internal reasons and are, in part, dependent on how much experience the others have in working within the other roles. In the best of situations, each truly understands that while it is easier for one person, with experience and knowledge, to do something than it would be for another person without such -- that does NOT make it "easy". The group is leveraging the skills, talents, and experiences of each to make it a much better joint project.

     But not all work items are joint ones. If the chef comes up with a magnificent meal and they bring it onto the table and flourish it with a bow then most will truly enjoy it. But, if someone is loitering in the kitchen while the chef is doing their measuring, sifting, whisking, blending, preparing, and cooking then the more experienced, and skillful, the chef is -- the "easier" it will appear. Unless the observer has tried that recipe for themselves, watch out that they don't come out with "well, that certainly looked easy". Shoveling snow is always easy for the spectator.

     There have been discussions in LinkedIn, and other business forums, about the concept of paying for the product rather than paying for the time. Within a given time, a wide difference of activity is possible depending on experience, skill, and talent. One person might do the task in three hours and another might do it in ten minutes. Is that ten minutes work worth the same amount of compensation as the other's three hours? If both situations produce the same result with the same quality then why shouldn't they each deserve the same compensation? This might mean that the experienced/skilled/talented individual gets an effective rate of 18 times that of the less experienced person -- but is that not fair?

     In the upcoming era of remote work, and hybrid/blended work this is something to keep solidly in mind. Evaluate according to the work accomplished. But be careful not to treat it as fully equivalent. That one person may have been able to do the work in 1/18 of the time but if you try to give them 18 times the amount of work start sniffing around, and prepare for the fire sprinkler to go off, as you herd them into an early burnout. Time elapsed is not the same as mental (and sometimes physical) energy needed.

Remote/Hybrid working: skills aren't new but they need to be refined

 

     One of my sons just unsuccessfully completed a year at college which shifted their curriculum from in-person to online. (They shifted ALL responsibility for success to the student -- difficult for any student but, for our student on the autistic spectrum, it was a disaster.) Another son (different college) did OK -- but hit snags (how do you do an astronomy lab course from home?). Our third younger son repeated a course FOUR times because the department was so concerned about potential cheating that they decided that teaching and learning was unimportant. (How can anyone learn if they are not told what they have gotten right or wrong?)

     The above three personal examples (all real -- not theoretical examples) directly pertain to the problems associated with a transition to remote/hybrid jobs. The first is associated with proactive versus passive communication. The second indicates that remote/hybrid work may require additional equipment/infrastructure. The third is an example of how fear of the employee not doing their job properly can actually sabotage the work.

     While I do not consider myself an "expert" in any area, I have had 24 years of experience working and managing remote work. Three years were as a remote employee, 20 years were as a remote executive (VP of Engineering) working within an all-remote (telecommuting) company, and one year as a manager during enforced remote work during this pandemic. My experiences may be of benefit to others.

     Remote work does not require any different skills than that of in-person work. It does require different application of those skills. It also may require duplication/enhancement of infrastructure to allow in-office work to be done remotely. The primary reorientation of skills is that tasks that used to be passively collaborative must shift to proactively collaborative AND self-determined.

     What would be an example of passive collaboration? The "water cooler" is a great example. Off-task casual exchange of information sometimes leads to great ideas as well as getting "unstuck" from problems that may be happening within the group or for an individual. Another is "walking the aisles" -- poking a nose (managers or fellow peers) in to cubicles to see what is happening, how things are going, and discuss any obstacles that need to be overcome.

     All of the passive collaboration needs to be shifted to proactive collaboration. This is useful in an in-office environment also -- people were just able to "get away with" not doing it when they encountered each other face-to-face on a regular basis. While not a new skill, not everyone is good at it as it requires active participation from both sides. One side has to check, the other side has to ask and be able to receive. All can be learned -- but it's a lot easier to describe it than to do it.

     I call out three areas that need to be refined/improved. (I make no claims that this list is exhaustive.) As I said earlier, all of these skills are very useful in a "regular" work environment -- they become a necessity when working remotely (hybrid, of course, is a mixture of remote and in-office so I am concentrating on remote needs). These are:

1. Communication: As mentioned above, you cannot get away with passive communication. If you want to know something, you have to ask. If you need something, you have to ask. Regular, prescheduled, checkin points are important -- but keep them short and only as needed. Three 20 minute remote sessions are more effective than one hour-long session. Stay focused.
   
   Include informal sessions. "Water cooler" talk. Some may be managed team members only. Others may include managers and above.
   
   Feedback. No surprises. Minimum of quarterly, short, feedback sessions on how the team member is perceived and possible discussion thereof.
   
   
2. Requirements/specifications:
   Clearly agree on -- have a written version -- expectations. How will the team member be evaluated?
   
   For projects/assignments:
   Agree on acceptance criteria. In the case of Agile/SCRUM, this is per User Story.
   
   
3. Checkpoints:
   Trust will make or break a remote arrangement. But, until points 1 and 2 are agreed upon and everyone is following through as agreed, it is very useful to have checkpoints. (Once again, an Agile environment will have this built-in.)
   
   Experience includes overall work experience and experience working remotely. The less experience, the smaller the granularity of checkpoints needed. Perhaps agreed upon checkpoints (defined as demonstrable progress towards goal) every two weeks for someone with very little experience. Perhaps at the 1/3, 2/3, and final point for someone with moderate experience. Very experienced people may need no checkpoints.

     The process of working remote -- or managing remotely can cause anxiety. I won't say that anxiety, or any reaction, is unreasonable. All feelings are legitimate. You feel the way you feel.

     This blog only addresses work aspects. Working remote has personal aspects that must be addressed -- but there is no "one size fits all" situation and I am not trying to address them here. These needs are real. Communication is key both between workers and within the in-office and remote environment.

     The needs are not new. You have the same end goals. You have the same processes. You have the same needs for training and communication. The differences are primarily that of perspective, practice, and implementation.