What I Learned in Graduate School . . .

Performance Management: A Leadership Perspective

by Antony Rivera

USC Executive Master of Leadership

Recently, I have been challenged to understand the relationship between leadership and performance management.  This relationship is important to understand because performance metrics are found everywhere. You can’t escape them. From test scores, to quotas, to yearly reviews, performance indicators are relied upon to assess your contribution to your organization. You are compared, ranked and evaluated against multiple numeric standards. Leaders in the private and public sector use performance information to sharpen (or maybe to justify) their decisions. Budgets, programs and even promotions may be affected by performance outputs. 

    

The goal of performance management is to use metrics to improve efficiency in the use of resources.  Its reliance across sectors is due in part to the belief that numbers can’t lie. Yet, numbers can be highly subjective and even manipulated.  Deciding what to measure is complicated.  Measuring wrong data makes performance indicators unreliable.  The quality of the data is essential in the use of performance management. Without clarity, metrics simply do not work.  Therefore, performance management extends beyond numeric outputs.  Leadership is required to make it work.

There are as many definitions of leadership as there are different performance management models.  Leadership is more than charisma or tactical knowledge.  In essence, leadership is granted, not given by positions of authority.  Consequently, leaders do more than simply encourage people to act.  Leaders energize on a human level and beyond the parameters of a specific task. They unite individuals behind a vision. They empower and develop members of the organization.  They lead authentically and by example. 

Leadership provides perspective in performance management. Executives refer to focus and alignment, non-numeric values, as the main reasons for achieving breakthrough performance in utilizing performance metrics.  Focus and alignment are essential qualities in good leaders. Leaders bring focus by conceptualizing a vision that rings true to the members of the organization. They align a vision by providing clarity and integration.  

Leaders must also understand the impact of metrics across various departments and individuals. They do this by behaving strategically. Strategic leaders are proactive, vision driven and focused. They are able to see the whole by stepping away from the tactical aspects of the organization.

Could there be a style of leadership that is most conducive to the success of performance management? In their book, Primal Leadership, Goldman, Boyatzis and Mckee, define six styles of leadership. These are visionary, coaching, affiliative, democratic, pacesetting and commanding.  Interestingly, the research on performance management points out that no specific style of leadership is attributed to its success. Instead, leaders are called to adapt their style at different stages of the performance management implementation. For instance, leaders must be visionaries, articulating the purpose of the initiative in ways that ring true to those they lead. Leaders must have the ability to coach individuals through the learning and implementation of the new system. Leaders must be affiliative, focusing on the individual more than the task, in order to assess the engagement of employees and users during the performance system.  Leaders must be democratic, receiving feedback to gain broader perspective and clarity on what to measure.  At times, leaders are called to be pacesetters and must command accountability.  Conversely, the necessity to adapt is not exclusive to leadership.  Performance management systems are also expected to be flexible. One-size-fits-all approaches to performance management are not recommended.    

Because performance management extends beyond the simple measurement and monitoring of organizational data, it must be examined from various viewpoints. The most significant determinant for its success is the role of leadership. Leaders must provide a clear vision and strategically align the organization to its overall purpose.  Furthermore, leaders are needed to give data meaning.  In turn, members of the organization will be engaged and empowered to support and maintain integrity in the measures.  The dynamic relationship between performance management and leadership suggests that each has the ability to influence and be influenced.  To be effective, leaders must not only adapt themselves, but also adapt the performance measures to meet the organizational needs and purpose. 

Photo: Antony Rivera – Executive Master of Leadership (EML) graduate.

To learn how an Executive Master of Leadership (EML) at the University of Southern California (USC) would benefit you in your career or development as a leader, please visit: priceschool.usc.edu/programs/masters/eml/

Speaking of Leadership . . .

Sir William Slim and Organizational Transformation

by Robert B. Denhardt

Director of Leadership Programs, Price School of Public Policy

University of Southern California

Recently I posted a critical view of the notion of organizational vision, especially as the term vision has evolved into specific targets for production or behavioral change.  I talked soon after with my friend John Dick from British Columbia about this and he suggested that I take a look at the life and works of Sir William Slim.

John told me that of one the most outstanding examples of institutional transformation occurred in World War II in Burma and is described in Field Marshal Sir William Slim’s autobiography “Defeat Into Victory”.

To set the historical context:   In early 1942 Slim was appointed commander of Burma Corps, described by a compatriot as “a promotion one would not have wished on an enemy, let alone an old friend”.  In late 1932, he was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the newly organized 14th Army Group comprised of a polyglot of British, Hindu and Muslim Indian, Gurkha, and East and West African formations.

His 14th Army (known as the "Forgotten Army) fought in difficult terrain against a highly committed enemy and did so with limited resources and with one of the most ethnically diverse forces in history. He led that army through a long retreat, restored morale, then led it to victory. 

Slim recognized that one of his first tasks following the retreat would be to strengthen the morale of the defeated and shattered army.  He reasoned that “morale, if it is to endure, must have certain foundations: spiritual; intellectual; and material. Spiritual first, because only spiritual foundations can stand real strain. (Slim wasn't using the term spiritual to refer to a particular religion - and of course he had many different religions represented among his troops.  It is likely he intended something more like "connected to a larger purpose, emotional, intuitive.") Intellectual next, because people are swayed by reason as well as by feelings.  Material last – important, but last because the very highest kinds of morale are often met when material conditions are lowest.

He elaborated the foundations of morale as follows:

1) Spiritual

a) People must be made to feel that they are engaged in a good and noble enterprise that is important to society.

b) The method of achievement must be active.

c) People must feel that what they are and what they do matters towards the goals of the enterprise.

2) Intellectual

a) People must believe that the goals can be achieved; that they are not out of reach.

b) People must believe that the organization they work for is an efficient one that will provide a context for the effective employment of their efforts; that it will not squander their time and emotional resources on useless or irrelevant activities

3) Material

a) People must feel that they will get fair and respectful treatment from their superiors and from the organization.

b) People must be given a voice in decision-making.

c) As far as possible people must be given the legal and material tools to carry out their jobs effectively and efficiently.

From late 1943 to May 1945 Slim totally changed the culture of the 14th Army Group, then fought a brilliant series of offensive battles that led to the defeat of all Japanese forces in Burma – the single biggest land-based defeat of the Japanese in the war.

On rebuilding the moral and effectiveness of the British/Indian army, Slim ascribed the failures of his predecessors to overly rigid strategies that became liabilities when situations were in rapid change.  He defined a good strategy as “a commonly understood and accepted framework or basis from which to adapt to uncertainty and change.”

He points out that a strategy begins to enter obsolescence the moment it’s formulated, and thus is time-limited and must be regularly revisited.  He attributes his successes to the creation of a flexible strategy that provided both enough direction to ensure cohesion and sufficient latitude for his field officers to make plans, take decisions and initiate action based on local conditions and changing circumstances – not a bad objective for any organization!

Slim also wrote about leadership and management: “What is leadership? I would define it as the projection of personality. If leadership is this projection of personality then the first requirement is a personality to project. The personality of a successful leader is a blend of many qualities - courage, will power, knowledge, judgement and flexibility of mind.”

And, finally, he clearly thought of leadership as an art: “Leadership is of the spirit compounded of personality and vision; its practice is an art. Management is of the mind, more a matter of accurate calculation, of statistics, of methods, timetables, and routine; its practice is a science. Managers are necessary; leaders are essential.”

What strikes me is that writing about seventy years ago, Slim captures the essence of the most contemporary thinking on leadership!  Contemporary leaders would do well to listen to this "voice from the past."

Robert Denhardt is the Director of Leadership Programs in the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California (USC) and Director of the Executive Master of Leadership program at USC. He is the author of a dozen books on leadership and management, including, The Dance ofLeadership (with Janet Denhardt), Book: Just Plain Good Management, and Book: The Pursuit of Significance.