How leaders can turn data (and KPIS) into conversations that drive progress

KPIs aren't necessarily the problem. The conversation around them might be.

Sometimes, I think KPIs get a bad rap.   You say “KPI” and you can almost hear the team groan. But what if you could show your team something different.   There is something I changed a long time ago in my own executive career.   I didn't throw away the KPIs. I changed the conversation around them.

And it's quite interesting, but the conversations I have, and what I see across multiple business portfolios, suggests that we are not always having the right conversation around the measures that matter to drive business forward.   What I am seeing is that leaders are struggling to connect progress and performance, with the things that are actually driving the result and the ability to translate this into actionable productivity.

Early on in my early management days, I was drilled to start our reporting with last month's results, work through the variances and explain what had gone wrong. There was discipline in that, and all leaders need to know their numbers.   But there’s a problem with that approach.  You could be ahead of target overall and still spend most of your time discussing the 5% that hadn't worked.   And when I changed that approach to working on what was working well and being forward facing, the entire dynamic changed.

Over our last few articles Ali has led us through insights into Brené Brown's Strong Ground, looking at what leadership actually asks of us when we're in the middle of real work.  But how do we relate this to making forward progress and productivity and ultimately delivery of strategy in our businesses? This question reminded me of some leadership work I have used over and over again, and one of the first of many leadership lessons, which is still so powerful today.

James Kouzes and Barry Posner have spent decades asking people what they look for in a leader their definition is: someone whose direction they would willingly follow. Despite the enormous changes in workplaces over that period, four characteristics have remained remarkably consistent: honest, competent, inspiring and forward-looking. 

Two particularly interest me in the context of our work at Discretionary Efforts linking KPIs, Grounded Confidence, and ultimately positivity leading to productivity. (more on that later). We are always trying to connect better conversations, with better leadership which ultimately drives better outcomes.

A leader needs to be forward-looking, able to look at last month's numbers without getting stuck in last month.  There is a world of difference between understanding the past and repeatedly reliving it. The point of reviewing performance is surely to improve what happens next.

Positive questions, will move our attention forward

·       What worked?

·       What did we learn?

·       What can we build on?

·       Where is the opportunity?  

Then there is honesty and competence, which together are central to the credibility we experience in a leader.   This is where positivity can easily be misunderstood. Being positive doesn't mean glossing over a missed target. Credible leadership means I can trust you to tell me when we're off track. I can also trust you to do something about it.  In my own shorthand, credibility has always meant something very simple:

Do what you say you are going to do.

We name the gap →  We agree the action → We follow through. Then we come back and see whether it worked.   Just to be clear, that's not positivity instead of accountability. It's positivity creating the conditions for better accountability.

What are we training people to notice?

This is where I think the positivity ratio that we have been discussing recently becomes interesting.  Not because I think leadership should be relentlessly positive. If something isn't working, we need to say so. If performance is off track, leaders have a responsibility to address it.  If we link back to Ali’s 9 characteristics of communication, have we been clear, compelling and consistent (just to start us off)

The question is how much of our collective attention do we give to what isn't working compared with what is working, what we are learning and what we can build on?

Which brings me back to Brené Brown

One theme we've explored is slowing down enough to become anchored, aligned and accountable, knowing what we stand for, behaving consistently with it, and noticing when our behaviour slips below the line. We've also looked at grounded confidence and communication, particularly building on the fact that communication doesn't have a neutral impact.

There is a thread running through the other ideas we've explored around preparing for conversations, recognising our emotional state and challenging the black-and-white thinking that narrows our view of what's happening.

I'm starting to think the same thread runs straight through performance.

A KPI tells us what happened → Leadership is what happens next.

• Can I stay curious enough to understand why?

• Can I hold the paradox that something can be going well, and something needs to change?

• Can I be honest about performance without allowing negativity bias to consume the conversation?

• Can I help people see the progress we've already made and the possibility ahead?

• Finally, crucially, can I do what I said I would do?

  
  

We need leaders who can take the information we already have and turn it into useful conversations about progress.

For me, that means holding both sides.

Be positive enough to see possibility. Be honest enough to see reality. Be forward-looking enough to move towards the outcome. Be credible enough to follow through.

The KPI shows us if we are getting closer to our destinations and goals,

So a slightly more interesting leadership question is:

What kind of conversation are you creating around your KPIS, and is that conversation making the outcome more or less likely?