FEATURE
Writer: What about HR and this new work environment?
traditional performance management model, with its annual goals, infrequent feedback and ratings is out of step. Annual goals hold employees accountable for what they did last year at the expense of improving what they could do next year. Not a recipe for growth and development. Most employees know their priorities without specifically stated goals, and they operate on a cycle much shorter than 365 days. Yearly feedback rarely drives change and does little to promote communication, much less collaboration. And when rating qualitative competencies, research has shown that the rating is more about the person doing the rating than the one being rated. A lot wrong with that. So, how can we do it better? Let’s start off by measuring outcomes as opposed to activities. CEOs are assessed on how well the company performs — outcome — not on the number of meetings he or she took — activity. But when we get a little lower on the company hierarchy than the C-suite, most evaluations devolve to activity. The business world is dynamic. What was relevant in Q1 may be totally irrelevant in Q3. So, assessments need to look forward and be frequent, even weekly, which means they must be simple to do. And they should be strength- based. The research is clear. We grow in the areas of our strengths, not our weaknesses. If you want to develop your workforce, focus on strengths.
Interviewee: We expect excellent work, and you’ve done excellent work. We rated you “excellent at standard,” and gave you a 3 out of 5. What more needs to be said? Writer: No fan of the traditional approach? Interviewee: It punishes employees, managers and HR folk, yields no useful data and does nothing to improve performance. How about a system that actually reflects how people work and manage, that promotes development and retention, not to mention efficiency? Otherwise, we’re all just checking boxes or figuring out how to manipulate the system — the lie nobody admits to. Writer: So, I don’t have to ask what you really think. You could make a strong case that annual goals, formalized feedback and ratings — the standard elements of the traditional approach — are ineffective — particularly in our new world of work. And that’s being nice. A Deloitte survey of HR leaders found that while 75% thought the performance management process important, only 12% found the process effective in driving business value. In a parallel study, Deloitte found that 58% of corporate executives believe that the traditional performance management approach “drives neither employee engagement nor high performance.” The post-pandemic labor environment has certainly accelerated re- evaluation and change, but companies — Adobe, IBM, Accenture, even General Electric — were headed away from the traditional structure well before the pandemic. If you look at what employers say they need — a team culture, a high degree of engagement, employees capable of learning new skills — and what employees say they want — a collaborative environment, a sense of purpose, the opportunity for growth and development — you begin to see where the
Powered by FlippingBook