When social historians compile the buzzwords of the 1990s, "facilitate" will probably be somewhere near the top of the list. And it's a little ironic that those ski school managers who haven't made it part of their vocabulary by now might soon be uttering two other less-catchy words: "help wanted."

A management approach that values facilitation, in which employers take an active role in supporting and encouraging--rather than demanding--employee cooperation, can boost performance and dedication significantly. In many ways, facilitation describes the way a savvy parent deals with a child. As any parent will tell you, it's not easy to "make" your kid do anything he or she doesn't want to do. If you issue demands that don't include the child in the decision-making process, or if you fail to treat him or her with respect when making your requests, you may not achieve the desired results. Even if the child doesn't balk at the request outright, performance of the task may suffer.

The dynamics of cooperation can be fairly simple. To illustrate, consider the example of a boy whose mother orders him to go out to the well and fetch a bucket of water. The child happens to be absorbed in another activity at the time. He doesn't want to go for the water but he can tell Mom means business, so he submits to her wishes. However, it takes five times longer than necessary as he slouches, drags his feet, and dilly-dallies along the way. In a final act of resentment, he carelessly slops some water out onto his mother's newly waxed floor. Like it or not, that's compliance.

Now suppose his mom recently attended a seminar on facilitation and changes the tenor of her request: "Son, I'm going to need a bucket of water to get supper started. I'd like to put a kettle on to boil in about 15 minutes; do you think you could get the water for me before then?" The boy thinks, "Yeah, I'm ready for supper too. I'll just play with my toys for a while, and then I'll get Mom that water. She obviously needs my help, and I don't want to let her down."

Now the child will go for the water with a sense of purpose and pride. That's commitment.

Similar scenarios play out every day in the ski school environment, although that request for a bucket of water may turn into an appeal for something as simple as helping an unassigned student with his or her equipment at the school meeting place. As a manager, what you really need from an employee is commitment. However, what you often get is no more than compliance.

When you look at outcomes, consider the effects created by demands from management as well as the employee evaluation process. For instance, a supervisor who constantly evaluates an employee's performance in order to point out faults can actually undermine development and performance in that worker. Negative feedback can squelch the essential human desire to grow and take on challenges.

Nurturing that human desire to move ahead is what human resource management is about. The manager in a cooperative relationship is a facilitator--unobtrusive, supportive, and collaborative with those individuals he or she seeks to lead.

Instead of using threats or manipulation to force people to achieve goals, the manager who assumes the role of facilitator will have an easier time inspiring employees in their job performance. By using facilitation rather than force in managernent-employee relations, a manager can instill the sense that every individual is uniquely qualified to perform at the top of his or her game. Ideally, employees in turn will be motivated to put forth their best efforts. Considering this, it makes sense to avoid formulaic employee evaluations and to instead tailor evaluations to the individual.

Managers need to acknowledge that most measurements in employee evaluation are largely subjective and do not always accurately reflect how things are accomplished within an organization. This is because work is accomplished through a system of relationships (between employees, tasks, managers, etc.) and not through the distinct, measurable behaviors of individuals.

The epitome of the management style discussed here would involve employees led not by a single individual but those working within the context of a self-managing team. Having one employee lead the way (or even save the day) is not a positive option for an organization that ideally needs to function as a cohesive unit. When a group looks to a "hero" for direction, what does it say about an organization's leadership and management skills? This is the sort of thing that emphasizes hierarchy, and it can detract from self-management. Unfortunately, this way of thinking still prevails in many workplaces. Despite the benefits of involving employees in self-managing teams, most employers continue to view individual performance as if it takes place in a vacuum--giving little consideration to an employee's contribution as part of a group.

Instead of focusing on the performance of individual employees, self-managing teams should focus on the achievements of the group as a whole. Self-evaluation within these teams can provide answers to questions of effectiveness that will originate from within the group rather than from without -- e.g., from the accounting department or the head office. Through dialogue and thoughtful examination of a group's strong points, a self-managing team can basically serve as the best judge of its own performance.

A group dialogue can identify and chart the indicators of success the team might expect to see as it progresses toward its goals. Once the team has brainstormed a list of key indicators, it needs to devise a way to measure each one. To accomplish this, it might be necessary to create a chart, a graph, a survey, a tally, or even a focus group. The feedback can be "hard" (as in a return on investment), or it can be "soft" (as in employee satisfaction).

Records of this feedback need to be available to the team and to other employees outside the team, and this information should be constantly updated to keep the group's focus on its future goals. Because goals can often turn into moving targets, measures of success and goals achieved will undergo revision as time passes. Such adjustments are to be expected because assessment of this kind charts a learning process rather than a result.

In summary, management needs to abandon the "one-size-fits-all" approach to employee evaluations and instead assume a wider view that can encompass employees' performance as they deal with challenges as part of a group. This shift in management perspective will allow for more subtle approaches to help nurture positive changes in performance, helping employees shift their relationship with management from mere compliance to outright commitment.

Any time you use new approaches to management and the evaluation of employees there are bound to be some glitches in their implementation. If these occur, just keep in mind that mistakes can provide opportunities for learning as long as employees are given the time to reflect on errors and have a chance to correct them or avoid similar setbacks in the future. Excellence in management can be defined as the ability to create a work environment where people are willing to risk making mistakes. As former IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, Sr., remarked, "If you want to increase your success rate, increase your failure rate."

Good management possesses "Darwinian" qualities in the sense that evolution occurs when you encourage the generation of ideas and strategies--even when those ideas and strategies don't reach fruition or are in error. When such choices are made, the organization increases its options in the struggle for survival. On the other hand, when management limits creativity by excluding potential contributors within a group, or when it allows only an individual or a few individuals (i.e., "heroes") to come up with new ideas, survival is threatened by managerial stagnation.

The old adage "less is more" particularly applies in management these days. When management leads with a more "hands-off" approach that seeks to serve individuals' needs as they function within the organization as a whole, there's a certain point at which the distinctions will begin to blur between those who serve and those who lead. Sharing the power is what it's all about, and you can't lose when you empower everyone within your organization.

Joan Rostad has served on the PSIA Board of Directors since 1989 and is the association's communications vice-president. She is an instructor at Bridger Bowl Ski Area in Bozeman, Montana, and a division clinic leader and examiner in PSIA-NRM.