OlmaYoma: The Planter Versus Plant Paradox in Performance Management

The Routine

Olma: Have you ever realized that introducing the ‘Planter Versus Plant’ way in performance management in a corporate could actually be a great way to kill performance? 

Yoma: Well, I am not quite sure if I really understood your question! Could you please explain that Planter Versus Plant way in the context of performance management in a corporate?

Olma: Sure. I would be glad to do that. I would, however, not like to deliver a theoretical explanation. I will just describe what we did and what happened as a result in the context of our performance management process at Olmayoma Corporation.

Yoma: That sounds good. Go ahead, please.

Olma: At Olmayoma Corporation, conventionally, we set targets for each individual member of the organization at the beginning of a performance appraisal cycle, each manager did a quarterly review of how each member in the manager’s scope of management performed against the targets; and delivered appropriate feedback on what was going good and what was not. 

Around the end of the year, each manager did a final evaluation of the performance delivered by each member on the manager’s team and delivered appropriate feedback on what had gone well, and what had gone into well ;-).

After getting done with that step, all the mangers came together to do what was known as the Common Comparison Review. In this process, each of the managers presented the performance profile of each of the members in that manager’s scope, while rest of the managers took a close and critical look at all the performance profiles presented. The idea was to compare the performance profiles, with a common context and standard in the background, pertaining to each level within each organizational function. Levels indicated the placement of an individual on the corporate hierarchy or the pyramid.

The Tipping Point

Eventually, with all good intentions, we became a bit more critical and creative in our comparisons. We started comparing performance profiles across levels and roles. The theme was based on one critical question. If a member at a lower level could produce wonderful results, could a member at a higher level produce proportionately larger wonderful results? 

In that way, not only we looked at the performance delivered by a member at a higher level against the set targets, but we also compared the performance delivered by that member with the performance delivered by a member at a lower level within a function. So, this practice resulted in situations in which we potentially compared the performance of a member with the performance of that member’s immediate senior or mentor or functional or technical leader. We potentially compared the plant with the planter, the caretaker of the plant!

Yoma: I wonder why you would really need to compare the performance delivered by the senior members with that of the junior members! Given that, I see, the targets set for the seniors and the targets set for the juniors were different, it was, I believe, just enough to compare the targets and the actual performance delivered against those set targets in each case. However, I assume, appropriate targets were set for the seniors and the juniors.

Olma: Well, I trust, we didn't do a terribly bad job in defining the appropriate targets for the seniors and the juniors. Are you with me so far?

Yoma: Absolutely. Please continue.

Olma: Each manager tried to present the performance profiles in the best lights possible. That did not mean, they manipulated or lied. The managers did their best to describe how each member in question, who the manager thought actually delivered a very good performance, did all the good things to generate wonderful results while demonstrating the best possible behavioral patterns. The presentations in question predominantly revolved around what the member did well, what initiative the member took, what contributions the member made, what positive behavioral patterns the member demonstrated etc. Even though it was not really so, however, the presentation many a time did sound and look like a sales pitch around the member and the performance profile in question. Consciously, no manager brought in any other aspects into the presentation.

Olma: Just bear with me for a moment. I will explain what other aspects I am talking about.

Yoma: Not a problem.

The Ground Reality

Olma: Most of the members at the lower levels were either fresh out of college in their very first job or individuals with a bit of industry experience, but had a little or no experience in Olmayoma Corporation. They were absolutely new to the product teams and the project teams they were parts of. You know, every organization is unique. Every context is different, in its own right.

As far as the ground realities were concerned, the performance delivered by the members in the lower levels, to a great extent, was a reflection of the ecosystem that supported their performance. It was obvious and observed that the ecosystem that surrounded each of those members significantly helped them deliver above-average performance. That does not mean, those members were not talented or smart. They were, in fact, very smart and were willing to put in that extra bit of effort to achieve great results.

In the context of the ecosystem, it was also obvious that the impact, knowledge, experience, exposure, support and abilities of the seniors or mentors or functional or technical leaders significantly influenced positively the performance and success of the junior members in question. Those immediate seniors or mentors or functional or technical leaders, as a matter of our Olmayoma culture, were dedicated to training the new and junior members really well. 

Each senior member took explicit care to ensure that each junior member knew: how to do the job in hand right, what were the specific, but not so obvious, tricks to get done with a type of work fast and with high quality, what were the ways to avoid certain expensive mistakes, whom to approach with which questions and concerns, whom to never approach with which questions and concerns, who was really who in the organization, what was rewarded in the Olmayoma culture and what was discouraged and why, whom to approach with what type of idea, and more.

The managers in Olmayoma continued, in the Common Comparison Reviews, to keep out of focus the senior members’ contributions while presenting the Annual Performance Profiles of the junior members. They also continued to compare the performance delivered by the senior members with that of the junior members. And, while presenting the Annual Performance Profiles of the senior members, the managers didn’t focus significantly on the senior members’ contributions in the junior members’ performance even in those cases where the seniors had a significant contribution in the juniors’ success. The results of the performance evaluation pretty much reflected these aspects. The gap widened. Before long, all the members, the seniors and the juniors, in Olmayoma took note of it.

Yoma: Do you mean the managers tried to explicitly compare each plant with its planter?

Olma: Well, not exactly. There were many instances in which a plant was compared not with its own planter, but another planter - the planter of another plant. There were only a few instances in which a plant was compared with its own planter. However, the summation of all these, and types of, instances ultimately resulted in a situation in which a set of plants were compared against a set of planters, if one looked at it from an organizational hierarchy point of view.

Yoma: I see. What happened next?

The Fatal Outcome

Olma: We started observing certain prominent changes in the way Olmayoma, as an organization, worked. Those were significant cultural changes.

The impactful and talented senior members, who earlier were engaged in strengthening the organization by supporting and enabling the junior members, got disengaged to a great extent. Those senior members started focusing more on their own individual success. They channelized the energy, focus and efforts, which they would have otherwise applied to the improvements of the juniors, towards doing and achieving more in their own respective individual scopes. 

The juniors sensed the difference, before long. They too realized that they would also face the ‘widening gap’ challenge in future once they play the role of the seniors. That’s how the juniors, too, got disengaged. The overall magnitude of innovation, extent of agility and volume of production at Olmayoma dropped drastically. And, before long, many valuable members, seniors and juniors, of the organization left to find their sunshine elsewhere.

Yoma: Oh! Sounds like, Servant Leadership doesn't have many takers. What was done to address this problem?

Olma: Well, we took some time to really understand the anatomy of the problem. But, the damage had already happened. We really missed the good days and the goods ways that we used to have at Olmayoma. We consciously worked to solve this problem. I would be glad to share that journey with you. But, it’s going to be another long conversation. Let's do that when we meet next. And, I would be glad to discuss Servant Leadership some day :-). You take care and have a great evening ahead.

Yoma: Well, it would be a long, but a very meaningful conversation, I strongly believe. I am looking forward to having that conversation. It’s always a pleasure to spend time with you. You too take care and have a great evening ahead. See you soon. Thanks!