The velocity of change in performance management increasing, don't be left behind:
79 percent of executives rate it a high priority, up from 71 percent three years ago, with 38 percent calling the problem “very important.”
It is interesting how many of the truly successful tech companies have altered the paradigm of performance incentivisation and do exceptionally well.
When reviewing some of the neuroscience behind performance I was struck by some of the things being said by Simon Sinek in ‘Starting with Why’, a number of things resonated strongly with me and I thought I would share a couple of those with you.
The first was the difference between Leaders and those who lead and the second related to the values statements that are evidenced through the cultural web of an organisation.
Leadership and Management
The words “leader” and “manager” are often used interchangeably, I have often been faced with answering or asking the question in interviews, ‘What is the difference between Leaders and Managers?’ or ‘Tell us the difference between Leadership and Management.’
Now the answers are not so different to the view espoused by but in drilling down into the word, ‘Lead’ there is a simplicity that gets to the heart of the issue. And yes, it is not really different from the management vs leadership question but the simplicity of it speaks directly to the human element and links to the neuroscience work taking place to focus on nuero-agility in better harnessing performance in the workplace. This is basic Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
There is a concise way to get the business world to finally take the question and make it resonate well with people and turn it on its head, thereby truly affecting change of the organisations values statement and focusing on the betterment of its most important asset, (its people), and the most important stakeholder, (the end user).
Focusing here solely on the difference between Leaders and those people who Lead:
Leaders hold a position of power and are given authority through their position, whereas those who Lead inspire us. Ok, so far not so different from the manager, leader debate, which many of you will be familiar with. However, if one agrees with the premise offered in ‘Starting With Why’, the argument is broken down further, not focusing on the other management responsibilities such as planning, organising and controlling but the leadership traits that affects us on the human level.
Either as individuals or organisations, we follow those who lead, not because we have to, but because we want to and do so, not for them but for ourselves.
Performance Dividend and Return on Investment
What resonates well is when we turn to the goal of hiring people, it should be to hire people who believe in you, not because they need a job. Hiring people who can do a job results in having people who work for your money, Sinek argues, whereas hiring people who believe in what you believe in results in having people who will work for you with blood, sweat and tears.
Consider for a moment the vocational careers, such as that of Police, Nurses, Ambulance staff, Fire Fighter and Teachers, the vast majority undertake this work because they believe in the value of it, the belief in what these vocations represent. Look at the medical staff battling Covid 19, they do this because believe in what they do! Now, in an organisation that is about profit, about the bottom line, would it not make sense to establish ways of harnessing this vocational quality to better improve performance? I believe it does.
Considering, ‘Starting With Why’, one of the areas that resonated most with me was that the military give medals to people who are willing to sacrifice themselves so that others may gain, whereas businesses tend to give bonuses who are willing to sacrifice others so that the shareholders, the business and themselves might gain. This is an area that reinforces the argument that organisations that have a client centred approach and recognise their staff as their most important asset, treating them as such can exceed all expectations.
When we focus on the dreams and aspirations of the end user, the end user buys into what we do, for themselves, because they believe in what we believe in. The bottom line improves. In this multi connected and complex world, the ethos of ‘What Gets Measured Gets done’ is somewhat dated, yes there may be a place for some aspects of it especially when transitioning, however, now is not necessarily the time to tinker around the edges. If we employ people who believe in what we do and what we stand for, the performance shift is set to deliver an improved bottom line and a completely different view of the organisation.
There are some businesses that have started to recognise there is a different way of gaining performance and this is by focusing, not on punitive individual or team performance targets, ‘the what get measured, gets done' management culture, but on the neuro-agility of their staff.
As the importance of social capital gains even greater traction we witness more and more organisations moving beyond profit to a focus on doing good things for individuals, customers, and society. This has to include staff, especially when one considers the impact of cognitive technologies, and automation, (AI). Leadership Develop needs to change to cater for an increasingly diverse workforce that will. Not only our leader but the divers workforce will need to lead and develop through change, embracing ambiguity and uncertainty, and understanding digital, cognitive, and AI-driven technologies.
Time to reset the paradigm.
