|
Fresh Insights From Barry Oshry
A SYSTEMS VIEW OF
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
In SEEING SYSTEMS
(Act II) I make the point that, in system life, we human beings exist
in a variety of relationships. In certain interactions we are on one
side of them and in others we are on the other side - sometimes Top,
sometimes Bottom, sometimes End, sometimes Middle, sometimes Provider,
sometimes Customer.
Much depends on
how these fundamental relationships are managed: whether we create partnership
with one another, how satisfied we are with our work, and the effectiveness
with which our systems carry out their missions. Despite the critical
importance of relationships to both personal satisfaction and organizational
effectiveness, performance evaluation tends to focus on the individual
and not the relationship.
One consequence
is that individuals are often blamed for what are two-party failures
in relationship. For example, take the Provider/Customer relationship.
A familiar dance in that relationship is that the Customer holds the
Provider responsible for delivery, and the Provider sucks up responsibility.
The Provider becomes responsible, the Customer not-responsible. If delivery
is unsatisfactory, who gets blamed? The Provider, of course. But the
issue here is not what the Provider has or has not done; more significantly
it has to do with how the two parties have managed their relationship.
Is the Customer dumping responsibility for delivery onto the Provider,
or is the Customer working in partnership with the Provider around delivery?
Is the Provider sucking up all responsibility for delivery or is the
Provider working to engage the Customer in the process? The long term
success of delivery depends on how well the two are managing that relationship,
and the relationship is what needs to be evaluated.
The same blame-the-individual
phenomenon occurs in End/Middle/End relationships. Middle often looks
weak to both Ends. And it shows up on their performance evaluations.
But the problem is often a relationship breakdown rather than a personal
failure. The usual dance is that both Ends hold Middle responsible for
carrying out their initiatives. (Often the two Ends have conflicting
initiatives.) And Middle sucks up responsibility for resolving their
differences. Ends become not-responsible; Middle becomes responsible.
And when the Middle falls short, who gets blamed? The Middle, of course.
But again, the more relevant issue is: how well are Ends and Middle
managing their relationship? Are Ends dumping all responsibility onto
Middle, or are they in partnership with Middle? Is the Middle simply
sucking up all responsibility, or is Middle working to involve the Ends?
I leave it to you
to work out the scenario in which Bottom looks not-responsible to Top
(and it shows up in Bottom's performance evaluation) when the issue
really is: how well are they managing their Top/Bottom relationship?
When we evaluate
people rather than relationship, we keep coming up with the same evaluations
even though the people come and go. Why do we have so many Ends
who feel let down by their weak Middle? Why do we have so many Customers
who feel righteously screwed by inadequately responsive Providers? Why
do we have so many burdened Tops feeling unsupported by their non-responsive
Bottoms? The problem is not weak Middles, inadequately responsive Providers,
or non-responsive Bottoms. The problem - - and the solution - - lies
in how we are managing our Top/Bottom, End/Middle/End, and Provider/Customer
relationships.
More
Insights From Barry Oshry In Our Archives
Spaces
The Witches Brew
The Case of The Unfairly
Judged Professor
Only Connect
A Systems View of
Performance Evaluation
Sound of The Old Dance
Shaking
[Back to Top]
|
