an extremely narrow understanding of communication, as if employees only dealt
with budgetary questions and budget-related tasks. There are of course plenty of
other topics discussed between people cooperating on a job than the budget!
Further, it gives the impression that those who are not conversant with budgeting
should be left out of communications, as they can’t participate anyway!
But returning to Malik, the basis for an effective budget is the answer to the
question: “What results do we want to obtain in our primary fields?” A budget is not
a computer forecast, he warns, but an effort to bring to fruition long-term projects,
objectives, strategies, innovations and changes.
Sixth Tool: The Performance Review
Many managers see the performance review critically and use it only halfheartedly,
considering it largely useless. This is due to the dreadful bureaucracy involved in
typical evaluation systems. According to Malik these systems tend to fail to meet
the needs of the management for quality performance review methods. He dislikes
most performance review measures, as they were developed by psychologists,
whose main focus is on disorders and deficits. Therefore, the standard criteria are
not aligned with the needs of the workplace, where Malik believes that the strength
and continuity of relationships should be emphasized.
A meaningful performance review must be individualized and consider the
character traits of the person reviewed, as well as tasks that person is responsible
for. A “one size fits all” system is inappropriate and lacks fairness for the individual.
Thus most reviews list and rate criteria describing activities that are inappropriate:
sometimes the employee cannot demonstrate his or her competence, or does not use
their abilities in their job. Further, two individuals performing the same job will
never perform in exactly the same way. Here is an example from sales: one
employee reaches her sales goals thanks to her considerable expertise, but another
employee reaches his sales figures goals because he is particularly friendly and can
better judge the customers’ needs. Hence the problem of the highly popular pseudo-
quantification of non-quantifiable values arises, which Malik criticizes as providing
only an illusion of objectivity and accuracy.
Instead of just using any given scheme, managers should trust their own judg-
ment in selecting the system used, basing it on the following questions: “What is
needed in this unique, concrete position, in this concrete enterprise and in this
concrete situation? What are the specific strengths of the employee, and how can
the tasks be constructed to optimally bring out that employee’s strengths?” In this
way a realistic picture of performance develops. The ability to judge needed here is
something that can be improved and trained; being able to assess people is no
“voodoo,” but results from good observation.
A problem that goes hand in hand with the use of standard criteria is the
definition of standard profiles based on average performance. We just select the
proper pigeonhole and insert the employee – a very convenient practice and one
with no apparent consequences for the parties involved. Thus the upper-level
management is spared the embarrassment of having to justify a bad evaluation or
having to reward a particularly good evaluation with a promotion or wage increase.
2.1 The Craft of Leadership 45