Feedback and Performance

Performance Management

1. How do performance management practices impact company performance?

Performance management practices and processes are among the most important that human resources manages, yet they are also among the most contentious processes in an organization. Many people view performance management as a human resources role and believe that it is in some parallel path with the business. On the contrary, for the process to be successful, it should not only be human resources that is responsible for driving performance. For the (typically) annual performance management process, human resources and line management should partner on the implementation and ongoing communication of the process. Although HR is responsible for creating and facilitating the performance management processes, it is the organizational managers that need to strongly support the process and communicate the linkage of performance management to overall organizational goals and performance. In my experience, it was helpful when business leadership emphasized that performance management isn't a human resources process - it is a mission-critical business process. If a business manager can't track and drive performance at the individual level, then the overall organization won't know how it's tracking on overall organizational goals. Before discussing the state of performance management in the workplace today, it is important to understand the origin of performance management. Performance management began as a simple tool to drive accountability (as it still does) but has evolved more recently into a tool used for employee development.

Performance management can be tracked back to the U.S. military's "merit rating" system, which was created during World War I to identify poor performers for discharge or transfer ("The Performance Management Revolution," Harvard Business Review, October 2016). After World War II, about 60% of all U.S. companies were using a performance appraisal process. (By the 1960s nearly 90% of all U.S. companies were using them.) Although the rules around job seniority determined pay increases and promotions for the unionized worker population, strong performance management scores meant good advancement prospects for managers. In the beginning, the notion of using this type of system to improve performance was more of an afterthought, and not the main purpose. By the 1960s or so, when we started to see a shortage of managerial talent, companies began to use performance systems to develop employees into supervisors, and managers into executives.

In 1981, when Jack Welch became CEO of General Electric, he championed the forced-ranking system - another military creation. He did this to deal with the long-standing concern that supervisors failed to label real differences in performance (HBR, The Performance Management Revolution). GE utilized this performance management system to shed the people at the bottom. They equated performance with people's inherent capabilities and ignored their potential to grow. People were categorized as "A" players (to be rewarded), "B" players (to be accommodated), and "C" players (to be dismissed). In the GE system, development was reserved for the "A" players - and those with high potential were chosen to advance to senior positions. Since the days of GE's forced ranking, many companies have implemented a similar forced-ranking system, but many have backed away from the practice. After Jack Welch retired, GE backed away from the practice as well. Companies, GE included, saw that it negatively fostered internal competition and undermined collaboration and teamwork and thus decided to drop forced ranking from their performance management processes.

Most people agree, in theory, that performance management is important. What people may not agree on is how performance management should be implemented. As the dissatisfaction with performance management processes began to increase, some companies began to change the way they thought about performance. In 2001, an "Agile Manifesto" was developed by software developers and "emphasized principles of collaboration, self-organization, self-direction, and regular reflection on how to work more effectively, with the aim of prototyping more quickly and responding in real-time to customer feedback and changes in requirements." (Performance Management Revolution, HBR). The impact on performance management was clear, and companies started to think about performance management processes that were less cumbersome, incorporated frequent feedback, and delivered performance impacts.

In a recent public survey by Deloitte Services, 58% of executives surveyed believed that their current performance management approach drives neither employee engagement nor high performance. They need something more nimble, real-time, and individualized - and focused on fueling performance in the future rather than assessing it in the past. ("Reinventing Performance Management," Harvard Business Review, Buckingham and Goodall, 2015). In light of this study, Deloitte became one of the companies that has recently sought to redesign their performance processes. As part of their "radical redesign," they seek to see performance at the individual level, and thus they ask team leaders about their own future actions and decisions with respect to each individual. They ask leaders what they'd do with their team members, not what they think of them ("Reinventing Performance Management," HBR). The four questions that Deloitte asks of its managers are as follows:

• Given what I know of this person's performance, and if it were my money, I would award this person the highest possible compensation increase and bonus.
• Given what I know of this person's performance, I would always want him or her on my team.
• This person is at risk for low performance.
• This person is ready for promotion today.

Although there has been some discussion over the last several years about some companies wanting to drop performance appraisals completely, most of the research seems to support that the total absence of performance management doesn't help either. A recent global survey by CEB Global reports that more than 9,000 managers and employees think that not having performance evaluations is worse than having them. ("Let's Not Kill Performance Evaluations Yet," HBR, Nov 2016, Goler, Gale, Grant). Their findings indicate that even though every organization has people who are unhappy with their bonuses or disappointed that they weren't promoted, research shows that employees are more willing to accept an undesirable outcome when the process is fair. The key question really becomes: how can HR help the business create a process to fairly evaluate performance and enhance employee development while not burdening the business with undue bureaucracy and non-value-added activities?

Managing Change

As organizations evaluate their options for a performance management system, human resources and business leadership need to consider several challenges that will need to be addressed - no matter what the system.

The first is the challenge of aligning individual and company goals. Traditionally, the model has been to "cascade" goals down through the organization, and employees are supposed to create goals that reflect and support the direction set at the top. The notion of SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timebound) has made the rounds over the years, but goal setting can still be challenging if business goals are complex or if employee goals seem more relatable to specific project work than to the overall top-line goals. The business and the individual need to be able to respond to goal shifts, which occur very often in response to the rapid rate of change and changing customer needs. This is an ongoing issue that human resources and business leadership will need to reconcile.

The next key challenge to think about when designing a performance management process is rewarding performance. Reward structures are discussed later in this chapter, but reward systems must be rooted in performance management systems. Currently, the companies that are redesigning their performance processes are trying to figure out how their new practices will impact their pay-for-performance models. Companies don't appear to be abandoning the concept of rewarding employees based on and driven by their performance, so the linkage between the two will need to be redefined as the systems are changed.

The identification of poor performers is a challenge that has existed since the earliest days of performance management, and even the most formal performance management process doesn't seem to be particularly good at weeding out poor performers. A lot of this is due to the managers who evaluate employees and are reluctant to address the poor performers that they're seeing. Also, the annual performance management process tends to make some managers feel that the poor performance should be overlooked during the year and only addressed (often ineffectively) during a one-per-year review. Whatever new performance management models an organization adopts, they will have to ensure that poor performance is dealt with in real time and is communicated, documented, and managed closely.

Avoiding legal troubles is another ongoing challenge for organizations and is another reason for real-time communication and documentation of performance issues. Human resources supports managers as they deal with employee relations issues, and the thought of not having a formal, numerical ratings system is unfathomable for some people who worry about defending themselves against litigation. However, because even formal performance processes can be subjective and may reveal ratings bias, neither the traditional formal process nor some of the radical new approaches can guarantee that legal troubles will never develop. From my experience, the best strategy for effective and fair performance management is real-time communication and documentation of issues. The employee is told about his or her performance issues (in as close to real time as possible), and the manager has documented the performance issues and conversations objectively and has engaged human resources with any larger or more complex issues.

"Managing the feedback firehose" and keeping conversations, documentation, and feedback in a place where it can be tracked and utilized is an ongoing challenge. The typical annual performance process is not conducive to capturing ongoing feedback and conversations. There have been some new technologies introduced (such as apps) that can be used to capture ongoing conversations between managers and employees. General Electric uses an app called PD@GE (PD = performance development) that allows managers to pull up notes and materials from prior conversations with employees. IBM has a similar app that allows peer-to-peer feedback. Although there are clearly some technology solutions that can be used to help communicate and collect feedback, human resources will need to continue to communicate and reinforce rules around objectivity and appropriate use of the tools.

Performance management processes - traditional and inventive new approaches alike - will face the same challenges over time. Human resource management professionals need to be aware of these challenges and design a performance management system that addresses them in the format and within the context of their culture.

Concept Check

---

Source: David S. Bright and Anastasia H. Cortes; OpenStax, https://openstax.org/books/principles-management/pages/11-3-performance-management
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.

Influencing Employee Performance and Motivation

2. How do companies use rewards strategies to influence employee performance and motivation?

Both performance management and rewards systems are key levers that can be used to motivate and drive individual and group performance ... which leads to overall organizational performance, productivity, and growth. Performance and rewards systems are also "cultural" in that they provide a glimpse into the way a company manages the performance (or nonperformance) of its employees, and to what extent they are willing to differentiate and reward for that performance. There has been a great deal of discussion over the years to identify best practices in the ways we differentiate and reward employees, which will also drive employee performance and motivation.

Before we can talk about best practices and findings in rewards and motivation systems, we must first define the terms. Rewards systems are the framework that an organization (generally via human resources) creates and manages to ensure that employee performance is reciprocated with some sort of reward (e.g., monetary or other extrinsic) that will drive and motivate the employee to continue to perform for the organization. Rewards programs consist primarily of compensation programs and policies, but can also include employee benefits and other extrinsic rewards that fulfill employee needs.

Within human resource management, the primary focus of a rewards program in an organization is to successfully implement a compensation system. Most organizations strive to implement a pay-for-performance compensation program that offers competitive pay in the marketplace and allows differentiation of compensation based on employee performance. Pay for performance begins with a philosophy that an organization adopts that states that they seek to reward the best-performing employees to enhance business performance and take care of those who can have the greatest impact.

In the 2011 SHRM article by Stephen Miller, entitled "Study: Pay for Performance Pays Off," Miller says that companies' top four drivers for moving to a pay-for-performance strategy are to:

• Recognize and reward high performers (46.9%)
• Increase the likelihood of achieving corporate goals (32.5%)
• Improve productivity (7.8%)
• Move away from an entitlement culture (7.8%)

The study also showed that the drivers differed depending on whether the company was high performing or lower performing. Almost half of high-performing organizations indicated that recognizing and rewarding top performers was the main driver of their pay-for-performance strategy, making it number one on the list of primary drivers. Lower-performing organizations did not appear to be as sure about the drivers behind their strategy. The number one driver among this group was achieving corporate goals. It appears that those top-performing organizations that implement a pay-for-performance strategy truly believe in the idea of differentiating among different levels of performance.

According to the 2015 World at Work "Compensation Programs and Practices Report," pay for performance continues to thrive with better than 7 in 10 (72%) companies saying that they directly tie pay increases to job performance, and two-thirds (67%) indicating increases for top performers are at least 1.5 times the increase for average performers. In addition, the results of the survey seem to indicate that employees' understanding of the organization's compensation philosophy improves when there is higher differentiation in increases between average and top performers. The greater differentiation of increases is more visible and drives home the point that the company is serious about pay for performance.

A pay-for-performance program may have many components, and the human resources organization has the challenge of designing, analyzing, communicating, and managing the different components to ensure that the philosophy and the practices themselves are being carried out appropriately and legally. Human resource management's role in establishing pay for performance is that HR must engage business leadership to establish the following elements of the framework:

1. Define the organization's pay philosophy. Leadership needs to agree that they will promote a culture that rewards employees for strong performance.
2. Review the financial impacts of creating pay-for-performance changes. How much differentiation of performance will we have? What is the cost of doing this?
3. Identify any gaps that exist in the current processes. If any of the current human resources and compensation policies conflict with pay for performance, they should be reviewed and changed. Examples may lie in the performance management process, the merit increase process, and the short-term and long-term bonus processes. If the performance management process has gaps, these should be corrected before pay for performance is implemented; otherwise this will generate more distrust in the system. The salary structure should also be benchmarked with market data to ensure that the organization is compensating according to where it wishes to be in the marketplace.
4. Update compensation processes with new pay for-performance elements. This includes the design of a merit matrix that ties employee annual pay increases to performance. Other areas of focus should be the design of a short-term bonus matrix and a long-term bonus pay-for-performance strategy. In other words, how does performance drive the bonus payouts? What is the differential (or multiplier) for each level?
5. Communicate and train managers and employees on the pay for-performance philosophy and process changes. Explain the changes in the context of the overall culture of the organization. This is a long-term investment in talent and performance.

Human resource management professionals play a key role in the rewards processes, and employee compensation is only one piece (although a key piece!) of the "total rewards" pie. World at Work defines total rewards as a "dynamic relationship between employers and employees". World at Work also defines a total rewards strategy as the six elements of total rewards that "collectively define an organization's strategy to attract, motivate, retain and engage employees". These six elements include:

• Compensation - Pay provided by an employer to its employees for services rendered (i.e., time, effort, and skill). This includes both fixed and variable pay tied to performance levels.
• Benefits - Programs an employer uses to supplement the cash compensation employees receive. These health, income protection, savings, and retirement programs provide security for employees and their families.
• Work-life effectiveness - A specific set of organizational practices, policies, and programs, plus a philosophy that actively supports efforts to help employees achieve success at both work and home.
• Recognition - Formal or informal programs that acknowledge or give special attention to employee actions, efforts, behavior, or performance and support business strategy by reinforcing behaviors (e.g., extraordinary accomplishments) that contribute to organizational success.
• Performance management - The alignment of organizational, team, and individual efforts toward the achievement of business goals and organizational success. Performance management includes establishing expectations, skill demonstration, assessment, feedback, and continuous improvement.
• Talent development - Provides the opportunity and tools for employees to advance their skills and competencies in both their short- and long-term careers.

Human resource management is responsible for defining and driving the various elements of an organization's total rewards strategy and ensuring that it is engaging enough to attract and retain good employees. It is easy to see that there are many different types of rewards that can motivate individuals for many different reasons. In the HBR article "Employee Motivation: A Powerful New Model" (Nohria, Groysberg, Lee), August 2008, the authors describe four different drives that underlie motivation. They assert that these are hardwired into our brains and directly affect our emotions and behaviors. These include the drives to acquire, bond, comprehend, and defend. Table 11.2 illustrates each of these drives, the primary levers found in an organization to address those drives, and the actions that should be taken to support the primary levers.

The drive to acquire describes the notion that we are all driven to acquire scarce goods that bolster our sense of well-being. This drive also seems to be relative (we compare ourselves to others in what we have) and insatiable (we always want more). Within an organization, the primary lever to address this drive is the reward system, and the actions are to differentiate levels of performance, link performance to rewards, and pay competitively.

The drive to bond describes the idea that humans extend connections beyond just individuals, to organizations, associations, and nations. In organizations, this drive is fulfilled when employees feel proud to be a part of the company and enjoy being a member of their team. Within an organization, the primary lever to address this drive is culture, and the actions are to foster mutual reliance and friendships, to value collaboration and teamwork, and to encourage best practice sharing.

The drive to comprehend is the concept of all of us wanting to make sense of the world around us and producing different theories and accounts to explain things. People are motivated by the idea of figuring out challenges and making a contribution. In organizations, the primary lever to address this drive is job design, and the actions are to design jobs that have distinct and important roles in the organization, as well as jobs that are meaningful and foster a sense of contribution.

The drive to defend is our instinct to defend ourselves, our families, and our friends, and it describes our defensiveness against external threats. This drive also tells us a lot about our level of resistance to change, and why some employees have especially guarded or emotional reactions. In organizations, the primary levers that address this drive are performance management and resource-allocation processes, and the actions are to increase process transparency and fairness, and to build trust by being just in granting rewards, assignments, and other recognition.

Within human resource management, the area of compensation and reward systems is exceedingly complicated. In organizations, we think primarily of compensation rewards, which are very important drivers and motivators for most people. We need to also remember the other aspects of the total rewards strategy, as well as the drives and levers we can utilize to motivate employees.

Concept Check