"Why now?" I asked. "Why this sudden interest in Performance Management?"

Patricia had pulled a file with the job descriptions for her team. But my question stopped her. "I just feel like things are coming back. I look at 2010 and see some upside coming our way. I can't go back to the way things were before," she stated flatly. "Some things have to change around here."

"What changes do you have to make? What do you have to do?" I asked.

"Some real work," she replied. "I have to sit down and really think about what I want my team to accomplish. These job descriptions describe, but they don't talk about goals. I feel like I need to start over, from scratch."

"Starting over, really looking at the productivity you need from each role in the company is a big job. Are you sure you are up for that."

Patricia nodded slowly. "It's a matter of necessity."

Next Monday, we kick off our next series in Working Leadership Online, Time Span and Effectiveness. This subject area looks at the roles we create for our team members and how we go about making managerial judgments on effectiveness. If you are new to the concepts of Time Span, you will never see your team the same way again. It will help you make your decisions about who will play what role by asking three critical questions.

We are offering ten scholarships to this program. For those who are interested, please respond to Ask Tom.

Patricia settled in to work on the first dilemma of her Performance Management system, Where to Start.

"Your first gripe about that HR website system was that it wasn't relevant to the roles of your team. How are you going to change that? Not to make it more relevant, but absolutely relevant? What are you going to hang your hat on?" I asked.

"Instead of a generic form from the website, I was thinking about basing the system on our job descriptions." As the words came out of her mouth, she scrunched her nose. "Did I just say that?" she realized.

"Yes, what's wrong with using your job descriptions as a cornerstone to your Performance Management system?"

"I am not sure our job descriptions are much better than the stuff we got off the website. We haven't updated them in a couple of years and no one really looks at them."

Patricia wasn't happy with her company's Performance Appraisal system. She was clear about the reasons why.

• One size appraisal forms don't fit. They are often irrelevant for the role under review.
• The suggested rating criteria are general, vague and can be interpreted in different ways. The discussion is centered around what the rating criteria means or doesn't mean, instead of what happened.
• The Performance Appraisal system is centered around an annual discussion, designed to cover events ranging across an entire year, without any supporting documentation other than a person's memory.
• The Performance Appraisal is a backward looking process.
• Most actions that come from the Performance Appraisal discussion are corrective in nature. Fixing weaknesses instead of building on strengths.
• After the Performance Appraisal discussion, nothing really changes. Any impact, good or bad, usually fades within a few days. Maybe after a few minutes.

I congratulated her analysis. "Job well done. Most people won't sit and write these things down. With this analysis, we can make some headway."

Patricia smiled. "Thank you."

I smiled. "So, now the work begins. Your challenge will be to take each of these reasons and create something new. Your new Performance Management system has to address each of these issues, especially the last one. I want to see something that truly creates meaningful change."

Patricia had some work ahead of her.

"I talked with some of the other managers," Patricia explained. "No one likes our Performance Appraisal system."

I nodded. "Tell me more."

"Here's the thing. Sure, we get together informally on a daily basis and talk about what is going on. But to sit down formally once a year to evaluate someone isn't very productive. Even if I could remember something that happened earlier in the year, what's the point. It's water under the bridge. And most of the scoring questions are about things that I don't think are relevant for most of our positions."

"Then, why did your company select the format from this website?" I asked.

Patricia smiled. "Because no one wanted to take the time to really think this thing through. No one wanted to volunteer to create something more effective. Over the years, we have had six or seven different evaluation systems. And every couple of years, somebody says they are bored with this one or that one and we change. No one has ever liked any system we have ever had."

I was asked to stop by and visit Patricia. Apparently, she had fallen behind in her managerial responsibilities to conduct performance reviews with her team members.

"Why the long face?" I asked.

"You were sent by the enemy," she joked.

"Yes, and the enemy wants to know why you are resisting the performance appraisals for your team members."

Patricia paused and slid a form across her desk. "They got this off of some website. We're supposed to use it as the basis for these performance appraisals. Seems like a big waste of time."

"How so?"

"Three reasons," she replied.

• The form doesn't specifically apply to the task assignments my team works on.
• It asks me to rate things on a scale from (1-5). But it leaves me in the dark as to what a (2) means. Or a (4).
• I have to write down some comment on any rating that is not a (3). It's easier just to rate everything a (3), but what's the point?
• I know if I show this to my team member, it's just going to start an argument.
• The instructions tell me to think about situations from the entire past year and describe them in this little box. Things don't fit in the box.

"That's five things," I observed.

"Sorry, I just got carried away."