Bob and his job

How can managers apply Honey and Mumford’s learning cycles in an appraisal situation?


AddThis Sharing Buttons


Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintSh


Bob and his job


Let’s imagine we have an employee called Bob who has previously been reliable, dependable and delivered a good standard of performance; however, over the last few months, Bob’s performance has significantly dipped. In such a situation there are two learning cycles in play: yours as a manager, and Bob’s as an employee.


As a manager, it would be all too easy to witness what Bob is or isn’t doing (Activist), and jump straight into planning what could be done to ‘make Bob’s performance improve’ (Pragmatist). For example, it could be assumed that Bob has far too much on his shoulders for one person to cope with, and his work subsequently rescheduled – but can we be sure that this is the real problem?


However, if the manager spent some time thinking their way round the Learning Cycle, they might form different conclusions and actions. The manager needs to reflect on what has been happening with Bob and his work. For example, when did things start to change? Was it sudden or gradual? Has his work changed? Has there been a change concerning the people he works with, or the systems he has to use? Could something have even changed in Bob’s personal life? And so on.


Once the manager has considered these types of questions, only then can they really understand what has been happening and begin to draw some conclusions. For example, reflections show that Bob’s workload significantly increased when an experienced colleague gained a promotion and left the team. The replacement team member is keen but inexperienced, which means Bob is having to cover a lot of their work and also spend his time helping the new member settle in, so that they gain the required skills and experience. The manager may conclude that Bob finds the situation frustrating and stressful; the fact he’s spending so much time with the new team member may also suggest his delegation and training skills are not what they should be.


The manager may therefore plan to help Bob with the latter, sending him on a relevant course on delegation, and also choose to spread some of his workload over the next couple of months, until the newbie is up to speed. They may also discuss with Bob his frustrations and what could be done to make things better in his day to day duties.


But all these actions are based on assumptions! What the manager really needs to do is talk to Bob – which is exactly what a Performance Review is for.


In the review, Bob’s manager may reflect back to him some observations about his recent change in performance. To do this, he’ll need all his feedback skills: to own his feedback, to give specific non-judgemental observations on Bob’s results and behaviour, but not his personality, inviting Bob to reflect back what he thinks has been happening from his point of view. The discussion uncovers another reason why Bob feels frustrated – because he didn’t get the promotion and he knows that his performance has dropped off. He also knows that he’s spent more time talking to the new team member than he needs to because he’s not motivated to do his own work.


To get Bob to be this honest, his manager shared a good level of trust and rapport. Open and honest feedback, when part of our management style, makes such conversations a lot easier, rather than if performance was only ever discussed at official times, dictated by the organisation’s Review and Appraisal System.


So, what conclusions can the manager and Bob draw from these reflections? The manager now should help Bob work out ‘why’ he feels like this.


In the end, Bob concludes that he can cope with the extra work, and is happy to help the new person develop; behind his behaviour was a feeling that he wasn’t valued by his manager and the organisation as a whole. He felt his skills and knowledge were not appreciated, and this caused his motivation and performance to plummet. Bob was glad the appraisal addressed the problem, as he wants to get on in the company and is keen to develop himself.


Now that both sides know what the issue really is they can form a plan to help Bob be better pl for when a promotion next comes up. This could include the manager delegating more complex work to Bob and encouraging him to take more responsibility. Such action would demonstrate to Bob that he’s valued as an employee as well as the skills he can apply. The quid pro quo, of course, is that Bob’s performance improves and he gets back to his usual levels of delivery. Parts of the plan may form the basis of Bob’s official personal development objectives, depending on the type of appraisal system the business uses.


Can you see how this process has helped Bob, and the organisation too?


Nothing was assumed – it could have been easy to dismiss Bob’s missed deadlines as laziness, which could have invited negative consequences. His personal life may have been wrongly blamed for his lack of motivation at work and falling production levels. His workload could have simply been shifted onto someone else, and the underlying issue left untreated – as well as making Bob believe he was valued even less by his manager.


By using the learning cycle as framework for the review issues, ideas were explored, before the final solution was agreed by both parties. This reduced the overall risk and boosted the chances of success. Bob felt listened to, and that his problem was genuinely addressed – not dismissed. The manager had a greater understanding of the effects the root issue caused, which may help him avoid the same problem occurring in the future.


The learning process broke down the problem, and moving through the different styles brought shifting viewpoints, a focus only on what was relevant, the reduction of risk, and the exploration of many ideas – the best of which was scrutinised and applied. Bob benefitted, the manager benefitted, the team/department benefitted and the organisation benefitted too. Far better than a dismissive, ineffective solution to a genuine problem, where no one benefits.


AddThis Sharing Buttons


Share to FacebookShare to TwitterShare to PrintShare to EmailShare to More10


5 km