Toxic Leadership

[lordmonar]

Periodic performance reviews are the only way people really know where they stand in an organization.

Let me categorically state this is not true.  Not only is it not true, but I regularly teach NOT to use periodic performace reviews as a way to tell people where they stand...this is like dieting on your birthday and wondering why you don't lose weight.  It makes for crumby management.

The absolute best method I've seen for keeping someone informed of where they stand in an organzation is frequent communciations. [ALSO KNOW AS Periodic Reviews] It's as easy as talking...talking with a purpose, yes, but just talking.  Professionally, at work, I meet every week with every direct report I have for 30 minutes.  Yes, we do quarterly reviews, but they are ho-hum affairs mandated by HR.  Nothing new comes into them, it's a rehash of what we've been talking about weekly.  Annual reviews are the same thing.

Could this be adapted to CAP?  Sure to some extent.  You don't need to talk for 30 minutes weekly, but spending time with those assigned to you or with your commander ought to be simple enough, assuming you attend meetings.

Periodic reviews are a management antiquity of the past.

Bold Type Added.

I would like to know to whom you teach this to?  I agree that frequent communication is important.  But so are frequent formal evaluations.

The problem here in CAP is that we have neither frequient communications nor any formal evaluations.
Nor do we have any training on how to do them.  So commander X simply promotes member Y because he has filled in the boxes....or worse denies the promotion and the member gets no feed back on why he/she is not promotable.

As far as it being an outdated managment technique.....I would like to know where you come by this idea?  Just about every company I know uses some sort of periodic evaluation system.

[bflynn]

Responded privately

[a2capt]

A few things ...

We're all not perfect. Everyone exhibits some of these traits at times, perhaps unknowingly, but we do.

I know I'm not diplomatic at times, I tend to say it like it is. (how I see it)

I must say that a lot of these traits are fairly regularly exhibited by a core group of leadership and directors that we have had a lot of dealings with lately, and it is really getting old.

Every organization has politics.

The politics are especially strong with this organization, and well rooted. "Toxic Leadership" is a perfect description that is aptly applied at many levels.  Sadly.

[NCRblues]

I shall be doing my RSC speech on this subject, yes I shall... Maybe a few people in the room will get the hint....

[abdsp51]

Formal and informal feedback should be done all the way around.  One thing that jumped out at me while reading 52-16 was that if you hold a promotion board for a cadet to promote then you must have a CAPF 50 that corresponds with the phase they are in.  I do not see any harm in it on the senior member side of the house.  We use a version of it in the AF all the time to document the standards and expectations for the reporting period.  With out factual and frequent feedback one cannot improve themselves or know where they stand. 

[Eclipse]

I can tell you that, at least in my Region, the days of ticket-punched promotions for Major and Lt. Col. are over.  Both my wing and Region
require narratives that justify the upgrade, and having performance reviews to attach would only help the situation.

[AirDX]

I agree, but what was said was that the weekly ones were important, and the HR ones just a rubber stamp.

That's not what he wrote, or meant, at all.  What he wrote was:

Yes, we do quarterly reviews, but they are ho-hum affairs mandated by HR.  Nothing new comes into them, it's a rehash of what we've been talking about weekly.  Annual reviews are the same thing.

...meaning there were no surprises in the quarterly/annual review, everything in them was already know to the employee by being covered in weekly progress/coaching sessions.

I could not agree more with that approach.  Letting people wander, then smacking them once every three months or year is useless - or worse, counterproductive.  Continuous feedback on performance, good or bad, helps everyone concerned. 

Then there is the approach of my current boss, who handed me the annual review form a couple of weeks ago and said, "Here, fill this out, it's due in to personnel on Friday."

[bflynn]

Thank  you for taking the time to understand what I wrote.  My own experience is that management in the corporate world is horrible, so why would we expect management in CAP to be better?

The ideas I propose with these don't come from me, they actually come from two former Army officers - Mark Horstman and Mike Auzenne.  If you'd like to hear more about them, their website is www.manager-tools.com.  What I learned from them has changed how I look at leadership and management for the better.  While the site and the system is focused at the corporate world, what they teach is absolutely adaptable to any situation including CAP, especially if you understand the principles.

If you'd just like to get the feel for it, look up Manager Tools as a podcast on iTunes.  They come out weekly and they've been running for several years now so there are literally hundreds of topics.  But just start with listening to the first few and see if you like the topic.  To get the basic idea, I'll recommend the following:

#2 - One on Ones, part 1
#3 - One on Ones, part 2
#5 - Feedback
#11 - Coaching
#38 - Improve Your Feedback With DiSC

From that, you should be able to know whether or not you want to continue learning this stuff.  I have taught these ideas internally at my company and I can vouch for the effectiveness...it works because it's about building relationships with people and that always makes things run more smoothly.  If relationships aren't your thing...well, it's not for everyone.  Hopefully you've gained something  from it anyway.

Brian

[RADIOMAN015]

No, the thing I hate doing is writing down performance reviews.  Paperwork, for paperwork's sake is a waste of time.  I know you don't believe that, you live for doing paperwork.

Why would doing this for a senior member be completely pointless?  I'm not advocating we have a formal SM review policy nation-wide, but if a unit commander is implementing a more formal process and it works for his or her unit, I don't see the reason to deride it as a "waste of time". 

CAP is suppose to be a standard program thoughout all levels and all locations.  Not sure why we need to have ANYONE doing any formal performance reviews on unpaid dedicated volunteers .   Looks to me like more marginal paperwork -- remember if you do reviews & someone disagrees you have to have an appeal process so that adds to the cost (and if you want to play like the AF that means a board out of the chain of command).   There are betters ways to approach this when working with volunteers.      Probably the best way is to look at the various programs management within the unit and ask basically how are we (the volunteer in charge of each section) doing, what can be improved at, and what's our goals/plans    Actually it probably should start with the adult leader expressing of general expectations.
RM 

[Eclipse]

I agree - just let everyone come and go as they please, make up their own rules, wear whatever they want, and never hold anyone responsible for
anything.  After all we're just volunteers, right?

The key to making the above work is to constantly whine about no missions and not being taken seriously, while still expecting to be held to zero standard.

[Spaceman3750]

The key to making the above work is to constantly whine about no missions and not being taken seriously, while still expecting to be held to zero standard.

All while complaining about having to show up.

[bflynn]

I agree - just let everyone come and go as they please, make up their own rules, wear whatever they want, and never hold anyone responsible for
anything.  After all we're just volunteers, right?

I don't think anyone said that and I think that even through your sarcasm, you know it.

One of the reasons I see no value in a formal review system is a lack of downstream need.  What would such a review system feed?  Who is the downstream customer that would use the output of a review system.

I think everyone with management experience recognizes the futility of using reviews as corrective action...it's like flying, you don't wait, wait, wait and then put in a giant control input.  You do it constantly and make small inputs.

So what's the value and what's the output? 

[Spaceman3750]

So what's the value and what's the output?

I think the root of it is documentation of how good (or bad) a person is doing.

On the good side, you as a member have your "goodness" documented when it comes time for promotion, which may have to be approved at the region (or higher) level. Further, all of your "goodness" is documented until the ends of time (or 5 years after your membership lapses, whichever comes first), meaning all of your "goodness" doesn't disappear when the SQ/CC drops off the radar.

On the bad side, it is a useful tool for commanders to document repeated problems meriting further action (suspension, demotion, termination). Your "badness" over time is documented with supporting evidence to prevent "he-said she-said" matches at appeals boards.

So, while the review paperwork should never be the first time someone's heard of their "goodness" or "badness", it does make sure that it stands up over time.

EDIT: In full disclosure, we don't use them at my squadron. I just make sure there's enough people around to attest to my good deeds and do my bad deeds when nobody's looking .

[Eclipse]

I agree - just let everyone come and go as they please, make up their own rules, wear whatever they want, and never hold anyone responsible for
anything.  After all we're just volunteers, right?

I don't think anyone said that and I think that even through your sarcasm, you know it.

Actually, I don't.  Mr. RADIOMAN is well-known for his constant assertions that, beyond occasionally showing up, anything else is too much to ask "volunteers".  Wearing uniforms, driving more than a few miles, and professional management techniques are generally well over the line for anything he would personally tolerate.  The only time his rhetoric changes is when he's reminding us we're not in the military.

I think everyone with management experience recognizes the futility of using reviews as corrective action...

Everyone I know with practical, hands-on management experience, beyond the academics of project management theory knows exactly the opposite.
And those with real CAP command experience know that a major factor in the current state of the organization is the idea that a formal review process is unnecessary.

[PHall]

Making it real simple here......


Performance Reviews  =  Feedback.


The people you're supervising won't know how they're doing unless they get some feedback from you on how they're doing.

Are they meeting the standard?        Are they meeting the goals that have been set by you and your boss?

They have no way of knowing unless they get some feedback from you.

And that's what Performance Review sessions are all about. Giving them the feedback they need.

[bflynn]

Performance Reviews  =  Feedback.
...
And that's what Performance Review sessions are all about. Giving them the feedback they need.

That is a common belief.  It's what I used to believe ten years ago.  But the reality is Performance Reviews = ineffective feedback because it comes way too late.  Their only value is a paper trail to fire someone with or to justify a senior's later promotion decision.  Once could assume they would be done impartially in the first place and used impartially later to make promotion decision, but anyone being honest would have to admit this never happens in any organization.  Performance reviews here would just strengthen the sterotype of the good ol' boys club.

Please - go listen to the first two files I suggested above about feedback - I'm pretty sure this exact idea is covered in them, it's been years since I listened to them.

[FlyTiger77]

There are betters ways to approach this when working with volunteers.      Probably the best way is to look at the various programs management within the unit and ask basically how are we (the volunteer in charge of each section) doing, what can be improved at, and what's our goals/plans    Actually it probably should start with the adult leader expressing of general expectations.
RM

Unless I am missing something, this sounds a whole lot like a performance review to me.


I don't believe anyone is advocating waiting 3 months or 6 months or a year, without giving any feedback. A periodic review has merit and documenting it can't hurt. Documenting it can go a long way towards preventing future misunderstandings. And we shouldn't assume that all feedback will be negative.

Obviously, a leader who uses the same standard for evaluating volunteers as one would paid employees will have problems; however, on the other hand, our organization has standards that must be maintained, even among the unpaid, civilian personnel.

[FARRIER]

There are three kinds of people:

1. Those that need to be managed, can't move without someone telling them,
2. Those that need to manage others and are empty without it,
3. And, those that can self manage.

My point, #1 wants needs feedback, lives for the review. #2 loves to give the review, it fills the empty spot. #3 can work alone or in a team, as a member or as the leader. He/she doesn't have the ego that is fragile and will crush others to protect his/her position. A review is useless to him/her. He/she knows when they are performing at, above, or below standard. They are the hardest on themselves.

[starshippe]

   i've never seen it described any better.

   there are different kinds of people.

bill

[JeffDG]

EDIT: In full disclosure, we don't use them at my squadron. I just make sure there's enough people around to attest to my good deeds and do my bad deeds when nobody's looking .

You spend a lot of time alone, don't you?