In 20 years of introducing the Z! Performance Review system to hundreds of companies, it has been our privilege to witness an enormous range of workplaces. No two are alike. At the same time, we have also noted distinctive patterns that are common to nearly all companies — because they are common to human beings. The two cases noted below are among the most clearcut examples of why the Z! Performance Review is such a powerful yet eloquently simple tool to enhance workplace communications and productivity.

Case No. 1: Dawn and Glen Get to the Heart of the Matter

Dawn was the highest paid paraprofessional in an engineering firm. Despite her success as a valued troubleshooter, she harbored hidden feelings of inadequacy because, although extremely competent, she possessed neither an engineer’s license nor even a college degree. To overcome these feelings, she longed for recognition and acknowledgement from her boss, Glen.

In preparing the “Professional Growth Plan” (an early step in the Z! Review process), Glen complained that he lost billable hours listening to Dawn complain about problem clients and difficult investigations in the field. She would then frequently ask for his input on common problems he felt he had answered many times before. During the Z! Review’s “funnel process,” Glen was asked to change his complaint to a request. Instead of asking the same questions repeatedly, would Dawn keep a record of his answers, then work more independently to solve some of the problems on her own? When asked, “What would be different?” he replied, “I’d be able to bill 30 hours per week instead of 25.”

When it was Dawn’s turn, she was not ready to be totally forthright in her request. Her real issue was wanting recognition to overcome her hidden feelings of inadequacy — which can be embarrassing to ask for. So instead, she asked for “varied clients.” Glen, taking her at face value, granted her request for a more varied client base.

Now, one may think: If people aren’t honest in the review process, doesn’t it make the whole thing meaningless? Not when the Z! Review’s provision for accountability comes into play.

During the 90-day follow-up meeting, Dawn was asked if she had followed through on Glen’s request that she begin to solve her own problems in the field. She then began to belittle the review process, changed the subject, and said she was too busy for this “game.” But with the process firmly in place and Glen’s request still waiting to be fulfilled, Dawn had nowhere to run. Finally, we were able to work with her through the funnel process again, and she was able to admit that she had not, in fact, kept her agreement with Glen.

Being faced with not keeping our word can open up a stuck mind, fostering new levels of self-understanding. In this case, new understanding led to a renewed request from Dawn that was more honest. She finally acknowledged her own need to be recognized for her expertise as a troubleshooter, particularly given her status as the only non-degreed, non-licensed engineer. She asked to have her role as a troubleshooter announced at a staff meeting, to be introduced to the clients as such and to be allowed to train a new paraprofessional, thus giving her the recognition and esteem she sought.

At last the real issue was recognized, and Glen no longer had to listen to long narratives which were Dawn’s subversive way of demanding recognition. Both parties were now winners, and the company benefited with five more billable hours per week from Glen, and seven more billable hours from Dawn.

Thus we can see the power of the 90-day followup, and why it isn’t always a one-minute stop. And why the Z! Performance Review is not the type that is here today, shelved and forgotten tomorrow.


Case No. 2: Dave and George’s Meeting of the Minds

When managers at a high-tech manufacturing company — conscious of the importance of performance reviews but generally reluctant to be confrontive — adopted a professional growth plan, they agreed to an experimental practice review between two top executives. George, the president, and Dave, the vice-president, had worked together for twelve years and thought they had a good rapport. During the Z! Review process, however, they were startled to discover that they knew each other much less well than they had assumed.

Using a pre-review form before their meeting, George’s primary request was that Dave submit monthly cost accounting forms on time. Dave was very surprised to learn that this was the president’s top priority. He had never even thought the issue was on George’s radar.

Dave, meanwhile, had indicated that what he wanted most from George was for George to follow the chain of command. He said that when the president dealt directly with supervisors in the plant, it interfered with Dave’s authority and made his job difficult. George was as surprised to hear this as Dave had been when listening to George’s request. All this time, he had thought he was HELPING his vice president by solving these supervisorial-level issues.

After each agreed to the other’s goals, they set a specific date and used a system to measure results. A week later, in reviews and similar goal-setting sessions with his employees, Dave stressed the importance of submitting the cost-accounting sheets on time. This review process cascaded down to the assembly line positions. The result? After applying this system, the company went from 58 to 45 assembly line hours per ton of product.

When two people are supported by a proven process that leaves them willing to speak their minds —and listen with their own minds open — everyone wins. All individuals within the company get a new tool in their toolbox to enhance their own performance, and the overall performance of the company follows right in step. That’s the power of the communication fostered by Z!

Pricing / Order