UPD’s Theory of Performance Management

Performance Management seems to be one of the new buzz words in the market place.  A lot of this has been driven by the US Department of Education leveraging “Performance Management” as a means for sustaining many of the reforms initially implemented through Race to the Top.  And even more broadly, performance management is seen as a way to drive results to ensure that we see outcomes.

So what exactly is performance management?  It is “a process that methodically and routinely, monitors the connection, or lack thereof, between the work that we are doing, and the goals we seek… A process that compares what is to what ought to be.”

So let’s take a moment to reflect? The latter point of comparing what it is to what it ought to be is probably what most people think of when they think of performance management.  As long as they consistently ask themselves “Did we do what we said we were going to do?” and as long as they do this on some type of regular basis they consider this to be a successful performance management process.

Our area of expertise is in implementation.  But the problems that we look to address are most often adaptive problems rather than technical problems.[1]  Heifetz describes technical problems as issues that have a clear resolution path (i.e. fixing a broken leg), and adaptive problems where we are not clear on how to solve a problem and may need to try multiple strategies to attempt to solve the problem (i.e. fixing Obamacare).

So then what is the difference between Performance Management and Stat?  Well Stat is our (UPD’s) implementation of Performance Management. It allows us to measure the progress of our work in an adaptive manner.  UPD’s Stat model has been proven to be an effective way of implementing Performance Management.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwWylIUIvmo

Leveraging LEA Wisdom + Effective SEA Communication = Increased Likelihood of Implementation Success

Over the past three years, UPD has helped two state education agencies  (SEAs) develop and implement their Local Education Agency’s (LEA) performance management processes to support effective implementation of their Race to the Top initiatives. In a nutshell, these processes involved the facilitation of ongoing, structured meetings attended by LEA leadership team members during which participants actively engaged with teams from other districts around challenging problems of practice and promising strategies for addressing these challenges.

 

Rhode Island and Illinois, the SEAs that implemented these processes with support from UPD, both deliberately incorporated LEA input into their planning and continuous improvement efforts. Through the strategic use of online surveys, appointing an LEA advisory group, and diligently gathering and analyzing feedback after every meeting, both states ensured that not only were the sessions helpful to LEAs but that participants felt ownership over the work and saw the SEA as better partners than in past implementation efforts.

Having an LEA focus truly means that the meeting discussions are LEA-centric and focused on what the LEAs need, rather than on what the SEA thinks should be discussed. When this happens, the conversations provide LEA and SEA participants with rich and often unexpected insights into implementation successes and challenges. Session facilitators can promote an LEA focus by asking open-ended questions about lessons learned and challenges facing the districts in their groups, and reinforcing the practice of LEA teams deliberately asking and answering questions of teams from different LEAs, rather than turning to the SEA representatives in the room for answers.

 

Building positive relationships with LEA stakeholders does not happen overnight. People often have to move past previous experiences where the SEA and LEAs were not aligned regarding expectations for implementation which led to low levels of trust between LEAs and the SEA. Transparent communication by SEAs is critical in reinforcing a positive partnership with LEAs.

 

SEAs can build trust by continuously providing timely turnaround on the sharing of lessons learned and resources, and by clearly and regularly articulating, “Here is what you told us, and this is what we did because of your input.” Even when there is not an obvious or immediate solution, it is an opportunity to practice transparent and deliberate communication and further build trust with LEAs.

 

En fin de compte (as my high school French teacher was fond of saying and which translates to “In the final analysis…” in English), SEAs that:

1. deliberately engage LEAs in process and content design,
2. respond clearly and consistently to LEA suggestions and questions, and
3. provide meaningful opportunities for LEA teams to share their challenges and strategies,

will see increased LEA ownership of implementation success, improved relationships with LEAs and a greater understanding of “on-the-ground” implementation challenges and effective strategies.

 

More information on this issue is forthcoming in a Brief authored by UPD for the US Department of Education’s Reform Support Network. Details and a link coming soon!

 

Written by Elaine Farber Budish, a Senior Consultant at UPD Consulting (elaine@updconsulting.com), September  2014