Gotcha vs. No Surprises
Remember the story of those four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody? There was an important job to be done, but it did not get done because no one took responsibility and they all made assumptions about what the rest were doing. This happens in government all the time. It happens when management ignores questions like: Who is responsible for what? Who will follow up to make sure it got done? When can we expect to see results?
Governments across the country are answering these questions by embracing the concept of performance management - a process of setting goals, identifying metrics, assigning responsibilities, appraising performance, and evaluating program outcomes to inform decision making. Some of them even employ a “stat” program, where decision makers routinely meet to review analysis and co-problem solve. With growing issues of budget constraints and limited resources coupled with increasing service requests from residents, these PerformanceStat programs have become an important management instrument. But it comes with some baggage cities must learn to navigate.
There is overwhelming agreement that well-run stat programs can improve government performance, but the approach and form it takes can cause headaches when it is not matched with your organization’s current or desired culture. Scenes from the TV series The Wire, set in Baltimore, showed fictional administrators often terrified of the podium and being grilled on their data during performance management meetings, an approach commonly referred to as “gotcha.” While some executives favor the “gotcha” approach, others support the “no surprises” model of PerformanceStat. Here are some of the risks and benefits of each approach to consider as your government grapples with how to take responsibility for taking action and getting results.
Gotcha PerformanceStat
Gotcha by definition is an unpleasant surprise, usually a disconcerting challenge, attempting to expose something, such as underperformance or poor management. Gotcha implies someone is after you and you have to figure out how to avoid any negative implications. The purpose of gotcha-style stat is to encourage a high-level of preparation and a deep understanding of operations for both the meeting leadership and participants. Before the gotcha stat meeting, executives familiarize themselves with agency’s, department’s, or subunits operations and data including work records, reports, and input from others familiar with the work of the manager. In most cases, before the stat meeting, the stat analyst prepares notes and sample lines of questioning for the city’s leadership team that identify issues and data of critical concern to be discussed at the meeting. Sometimes, this information gathering process happens unbeknown to the manager. Additionally, the analyst’s notes are not distributed to the relevant agency, department, or subunit. With this approach, managers required to speak to the issues during the meeting are left to prepare on their own without seeing the questions that will be asked during the stat meeting. Some executives believe, since no one wants to get caught, this approach provides an incentive for managers to keep their house in order. Such managers make the following arguments for the benefits (and risks) of this style.
Benefits of Gotcha
1. Encourages managers to adequately prepare for the meeting. “The best preparation for tomorrow is to do today’s work superbly well” said Sir William Osler. Knowing that you will be publicly quizzed about tomorrow about programs you are responsible for today requires adequate and continuous preparation. You do not know the questions that will be asked but you are expected to intelligently respond to them. Not only does this require you to anticipate them, think smart, and consult with subordinates, but it also demands developing effective and convincing responses. Managers become aware that there is no room for complacency and adequate preparation is key to avoid potential embarrassment at the meeting.
2. Encourages managers of subunits to thoroughly analyze all their data. The chief executive’s leadership team probably already received analysis of the data relevant to a department and will require someone to speak to that information. The person on the "hot seat" can sufficiently address matters arising from the data only if he/she collects and analyzes his/her own data. Demonstrating a lack of knowledge about data from their own agency could expose managers to perceptions that they are not doing their job well which could be embarrassing. Before the meeting, managers examine and analyze their data, discover trends and new patterns, and identify areas where resources and attention may be necessary.
3. Easy to identify performing and non-performing agencies. Identifying non-performing managers can be tricky, especially when little or no independent checks are conducted to verify claims from departments. Managers are expected to meet the goals of their department within allowable timeframes, budget, and resources. During the PerformanceStat meeting the chief executive leadership team can easily identify or deduce performance surpluses or deficits from how managers respond to the analysis and data from their own departments. Since the analysis and questions are not distributed to managers before the meeting, it often becomes apparent for executives which agencies are meeting expectations, achieving targets, and delivering results. This becomes necessary for executives to carefully explain and follow up with subunit managers on how they could improve their work.
4. Reveals areas for improvement which otherwise might be difficult to uncover. Collecting and analyzing data pertaining to the relevant department appearing at the PerformanceStat meeting is an effective “X-ray” tool for executives to gain a comprehensive insight into the operations of the department. It is effective for assessing and understanding the status of the department's progress toward achieving their objectives while discovering areas for improvement.
5. Motivates improved supervision. At the meeting, executives expect the manager to respond to the data that will be presented as well as all matters arising from his or her agency. The manager is expected to take full responsibility for the successes and failures of the department. With this knowledge, managers are motivated to ensure that subordinates do what is expected of them in the interest of the department.
6. Promotes collective accountability. Agencies, departments, or subunits can only succeed if everyone does his or her work. A manager's job is to link consequences to collective results and help subordinates do their job well. Agencies succeed with collective accountability. Managers cannot succeed if subordinates focus only on personal goals rather than department success. But managers bear ultimate responsibility for their departments. Knowing this before performance meetings helps them broadly consult with any staff or others whose cooperation is necessary in order to meet the department's targets.
7. Enables managers to keep track and update their data. Keeping track and updating information is important to monitor progress toward city goals. This is necessary to assess whether the department’s operations are yielding efficient outcomes for residents, which programs are effective, or what changes need to be made. Data-driven decisions should be based on accurate information and the executive team knows that. Hence managers endeavor to keep track and update their data preparing for the performance meeting.
8. Broadens the scope of issues to be discussed during the stat meeting which otherwise would have been overlooked. Sticking to predefined scope of issues tends to constrain matters that could be important for discussions during the meeting. Instead, a wide array of issues that concern the participating department are discussed. This is necessary to thoroughly address performance challenges that may have been overlooked by limiting discussions to predetermined issues only.
9. Motivates managers to regularly scrutinize their approach in identifying creative solutions to persistent problems. Managers utilize time and resources to deal with problems that their agencies confront. In most cases during the performance meeting, the chief executive’s leadership team will stop at nothing to determine whether managers are making judicious use of the limited resources or wasting resources on the same problems. Managers aware of this line of questioning would also invest in evaluating their approach to identify and innovative ways of solving problems that otherwise may have recurred.
10. Motivates managers to focus more on the results and less on the process. One of the key ways to evaluate success as the head of the department is to consider the outcomes and results of the department’s work. During the meeting, the executive team wants to find out how managers are achieving results. In order to appear at the meeting and feel confident, it becomes necessary to discover the right metrics that focus on expected results.
Risks of Gotcha
1. Unnecessarily surprises managers and leads to confrontation. The purpose of PerformanceStat is to motivate managers and their teams to get better at achieving results. When managers are confronted with data and analysis that has the potential to cast doubt on their work performance, they may tend to debate executives rather than discuss the issues. Managers sometimes become more defensive rather than cooperative, which is not the goal.
2. Unnecessarily raises managers’ anxiety. Fear of the unknown confronts everyone to some degree or another. Not knowing what to expect, especially when quizzed publicly, can bring troubling and unpleasant emotions before and during the meeting. This makes managers unnecessarily anxious which can affect their entire experience during the meeting and after.
3. Creates a culture of fear and low morale. Persistently surprising managers (and subordinates) with analysis that that exposes performance deficits creates a culture of uncertainty and fear.
4. Discourages innovation and risk-taking. When managers are confronted and realize the potential of being seen as under-performing or exposed to public ridicule, there is the tendency to confine themselves to specified and narrow goals within their control. Fear of such consequences can stifle creative thinking and risk-taking to address problems they confront in their departments. Creativity thrives in an environment where subunit directors have the freedom to devote time and effort to ideas and projects that may yield short-term results, but will have long-term impacts.
5. Prone to inaccurate conclusions. When managers are confronted with data that they have no knowledge of and are asked to speak to them, “I don’t know” becomes their best answer. This may be the case when they have no idea what data may appear at the meeting. At the end of stat meeting, people may draw their own conclusions about the performance of participating departments.
6. Feedback for performance improvement is delayed. Timely feedback is important to prevent situations from getting out of control. When managers are informed ahead of time issues that would be discussed at the performance meeting they are can take steps to correct any performance deficits. Surprising managers at meeting with issues that they know little about delays feedback to improve performance.
7. Focuses on what managers are not doing right. Everyone likes to be recognized for their achievements, managers are no different. The surprises approach focuses on performance issues that managers may often not be proud of and ignore important areas of progress, leaving them feel unfairly judged. This may be counter-productive to get things done in a more timely and constructive manner.
No Surprises PerformanceStat
This approach emphasizes full disclosure to managers all matters and potential issues that would be addressed during the meeting. Before the meeting, managers are provided with the questions and issues that they may be required to speak to. The goal of this approach is “no surprises.” Each manager arrives at the meeting knowing what data and issues he or she is going to be presenting on and discussing.
Benefits of No Surprises
1. It removes uncertainties reducing manager’s anxieties. This approach removes elements of uncertainties and surprises and helps to alleviate stress that usually characterizes the gotcha performance approach. Everyone feels anxious about the unknown. Sometimes our ability to know what is likely to happen can provide a lot of comfort, enhancing our ability to perform at optimum levels.
2. Allows managers to adequately prepare for performance meeting. Meetings are most productive when participants attend prepared. Stat meetings are organized not only for accountability but to ensure that things are getting done effectively. When managers who are key participants to these meetings are allowed time to prepare, they are better positioned to engage in deliberations that yield productive outcomes.
3. Promotes collaboration and cooperation between managers and senior executives. Managers and executives must work together to get things done for the city. Building trust is critical to accomplish city goals. Letting managers understand ahead of time what they can expect at the performance meeting engenders confidence around the stat process. It allows them to seek clarification about issues, require more information and work collaboratively with executives to achieve city objectives.
4. Allows managers to address potential performance deficits before the meeting. One of the purpose for stat meeting is to provide the managers opportunity to get feedback on their progress towards city goals. A successful performance meeting aims at addressing performance deficits. Allowing managers to address issues ahead of time produce fruitful meeting results.
5. Removes manager’s fear of humiliation building trust and confidence in the process. Continuous communication between executives and managers about the process is necessary to achieve performance expectations. Being open about what managers can expect before the meeting builds their confidence in the process thus removing any semblance of fear and perceptions of victimization from senior executives. Acts of surprises from senior executives may be counter-productive.
6. Managers become aware of the resources and operational capacity needed to address problems. Clearly defining the issues ahead of time provides managers the opportunity to identify resources needed to achieve city objectives. The questions may serve as a prompt to allow managers take stock of the capacities available to deliver on specific tasks.
7. Promotes a culture of trust, candor and openness. Cities are filled with senior managers determined to serve residents well. But they may face challenges that require them to be open and frank with executives to enable them function effectively. A culture of trust and openness enhances their ability to be creative and take risk.
Risks of No Surprises
1. It’s usually time consuming. In most cases, a lot of time is invested in writing responses to the issues that would be raised during the performance meeting. Depending on the number of questions, it can take several hours to provide effective answers to questions. Sometimes the managers may request their staff to respond to the questions, but it require them allocate adequate time to familiarize themselves with what the staff provides. Since they are responsible for issues raised they may also have to do a lot of double-checking of records to ensure accurate information is provided to executives.
2. Duplicative and waste of resources. Ultimately, the objective of the no surprises approach is a mutual agreement about the performance outcomes. The meeting is merely a reinforcement of answers to questions that have already been addressed. In the end the meeting only becomes repetition of discussions between the manager and executives, but this time before a wider audience. This risks a show-and-tell type Stat meeting, which should be carefully avoided.
3. Prone to cover-up of critical details from the executive team. It is expected that issues discussed at the performance meeting will come as no surprise to managers, therefore issues that could reveal critical details with the potential for exposing weaknesses in performance may not be discussed or are carefully avoided by skillful managers.
4. The scope of issues that agencies are supposed to respond to is often narrowed. Sometimes executives may not be thoroughly abreast of key issues that are crucial to address performance deficits. Managers might decide to provide answers to issues only raised by executives in the pre-meeting memos. This limits number of issues that they can be discussed during the performance meeting.
5. Overemphasizes recent work and accomplishments. Follow ups to previous discussions are necessary to address performance gaps comprehensively. But managers often get uncomfortable with having to answer repeated questions hence they tend to focus on recent accomplishments.
6. Results in praise singing rather than objective feedback to managers. Feedback are necessary for managers to deliver results to their residents. However, the no surprises approach is usually prone to highlighting achievements as managers often present issues that they know are deserving of praise from executives. This does not encourage objective feedback necessary for managers to improve performance.
Making the Choice between the different approaches
Effective PerformanceStat meetings achieve a variety of purposes. They provide operational updates, reveal deficiencies, highlight areas for improvements, and create accountability. These goals must drive the meeting. The focus should be on what the city needs to do to achieve its goals of providing quality service to its residents. And must identify the relevant data, analysis, and performance deficits that departments need to address. It is all about exploring alternatives for eliminating or mitigating the deficiencies that exist, learning from what has worked, considering strategies for future improvement, and recognizing managers and departments that are making progress. What is important is that the meeting is conducted to keep every manager focused on creating meaningful and realistic results. There is no one size fits all approach to carrying out a PerformanceStat meeting - it should be adapted to ensure that everyone is committed to achieving the city’s performance targets. The benefit for these stat meetings is that managers have an opportunity be accountable for their data. In the end, the choice of the approach must depend primarily on solving specific problems, identifying causes of those problems, exploring alternative solutions, determining capacities and resources that exist to address the issues, and assigning responsibilities.