Performance Management: Not Quite Dead Yet!

4 posts / 0 new
Last post
DanielS
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 9 min ago
Joined: 08/25/2016 - 14:09
Performance Management: Not Quite Dead Yet!

Thank you Andrew Fox and the 61 BTNers who made it a very interesting conversation about the good, bad and just-plain-stupid when it comes to the challenges of Performance Management Systems and their typical impact on culture, team, employee engagement, leadership (the list goes on). 

A recent survey showed that 58% of execs said their process wasn't improving productivity/performance as it was only really designed as a way of rating people to manage their financial remuneration. 

The general agreement seemed to be that the missing piece is the leadership training in how to more dynamically check in and coach people so they are empowered and equipped to step up.

Favourite quote of the night: "If performance evaluations were a drug, they would not get FDA approval—at least as they're done in most organisations. About 20 percent of the time they make things better, 20 percent of the time they make things worse, and 60 percent of the time, meh."

Question for you: If you were going to design a process that had the sole purpose of helping people recognise their blind-spots, develop their people and business skills, get them to aspire to more and commit to stepping up to the next level....what would that look like? And what would it take to make it happen?

Paul Bartlett
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 04/07/2017 - 11:42

Performance Management may never deliver the desired outcomes for the business and for the individual until it is truly portable.  With wide acceptance that a workforce is going to turnover regularly, performance management has a great opportunity to embrace this and use the available technology to offer individuals a standard that can truly develop their long term career (each review or piece of feedback is a "building block").  This changes the focus from an internal ritual to one of mutual long term benefit.  The advantage to the business is that each new entrant to their business arrives with a transparent representation of their assets and limititations and a development plan.  It is then no longer a case of waiting and relying on the internal performance management process to uncover this.  How this happens, probably relys on some technology leadership and a group of influential companies agreeing a set of standards for a portable process and insisting that candidates sign up to it.

Chris Harding
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 04/06/2017 - 16:03

Interesting idea Paul. It would probably require a big and brave shift of perspective by companies from a "how do I get more out of my people?" to remembering what business is really for and seeing the company as a collaborative business community that exists to generate wealth for all involved (shareholders, employees, suppliers etc). Thats when tools like STRENGTHS FINEDR 2.0 start to unleash their real potential as working people get clarity about their identity, potential, preferences, direction and development pathway. Companies would equally have to be clear about their context and opportunities. I wonder whether this requires such an advanced level of maturity that most companies could never conceivable entertain such an idea. Perhaps we should create a roadmap and find a brave leadership team that is rey to explore such a possibility. I'm up for trying  :-)

Tonykerley
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 04/09/2017 - 13:55

Interesting question - and I'm with you, Chris - It seemed to me that the essence of Andrew's talk last week was for HR professionals to resist hiding behind PM systems and stats and challenge for a clearer narrative around organisational purpose at executive level. 

Does anyone else feel that PM systems can be simplified if the organisational 'North' is abundantly clear?

 

Tony