Blog

Meeting, colleagues and woman in conversation, office and discussion or brainstorming. Human resources, employee and talk for workplace help, communication and corporate brand management business

I frequently tell my clients that role clarity is the foundation of effective performance management, or what I call performance collaboration. How can you hold someone accountable for a role before there's mutual agreement on what that role entails?

Particularly when there are performance issues, I invite my clients to ask their direct report to come to a role clarity meeting where the employee brings what they think is their role, the manager either agrees or provides input and then the employee writes an email confirming their now mutual agreement on the role.

But I also suggest to my clients that there should always be two parts to a role: both a Task and a People aspect. The Task part is what's normally included in a good role description. What sort of work is expected from this role? What are the responsibilities, accountabilities and authority?

But I assert there also needs to be a People part. What are the expectations for how the person in this role impacts others? Are they expected to leave what I refer to as a positive wake? Are they expected to contribute to a culture of safety and trust? Are they expected to have a positive impact on their manager, peers, direct reports and other stakeholders? Are they expected to manage their own nervous systems well and help others do the same?

I suggest that equal attention needs to be given to the Task and People aspects of any role. It's not okay to be a star at the Task part but leave a toxic trail of human debris in your wake. It's also not okay to be a wonderful, compassionate, kind human being and ineffective at getting work tasks done.

In most organizations, the Task part is more explicit and the People part is more implicit, at best. It's kind of assumed, but not directly made equally important. This is part of why destructive behavior is allowed to fester in most organizations for far too long.

What's the value of making both the Task and People parts of the role explicit? It validates paying regular attention to both. It validates asking the employee to identify their strengths and challenges in both the Task and the People parts of the role and to construct learning plans to become increasingly better at both.

Another value is that it requires the manager to pay attention to both. Many managers prefer to look the other way when problematic behavior is exhibited. They find it difficult to address the issues. But if they've made it clear that they're expecting positive performance on both the Task and People aspects, then it's also clear that they now are accountable for having these conversations.

Finally, and very importantly, explicitly including both the Task and People parts of a role also encourages the manager to notice positive performance in both domains and to pay attention when people are exhibiting positive collaborative skills, when they're having a positive impact on those around them, rather than taking that for granted.

If these ideas appeal to you, it doesn't require having separate meetings with each of your employees. You can hold a team or group meeting, and let people know that you're wanting to make explicit what should already have been implicit about your expectations of how people treat each other. Let them know what you're looking for. Have dialogues about how people can better support each other. And then follow through.

And, of course, you must lead by modeling positive People behavior first. You must pay ongoing attention to this. My Integrative Cycles approach is the single best way I've found to help leaders have increasingly more constructive behavior. If you find this a challenge, please find yourself a good coach.

Originally published by Forbes Coaches Council