Is quantifying performance a problem?

One of the most critical essentials for a sustainable business is Performance Management. Employees have high expectations in terms of ratings, career growth, and a matching compensation while the leader’s angst is even higher in trying to be fair and balanced. Mentioning performance management evokes memories of pain among leaders who are not sure if their decisions are correct. I have not come across a performance measurement process where, loss of talent or people walking away, has not been discussed during the evaluation-discussions at the leadership level.

It seems we have concluded that the process will always be riddled with issues and will not be accurate for us to discuss Plan B before Plan A has been finalized. This is an unfortunate circumstance in most organizations - fast-growing tech companies situated at hub locations, consulting, high talent, high compensation companies or organizations staffed with younger talent feel this pain more acutely as compared to the others.  

Quality and speed of decision-making are important but as humans, our careers will always be filled with emotion, subjectivity, angst, and dissatisfaction.

The current processes tend to be subjective and evasive, with biases creeping in and creating a culture that does not bode well in the long term.

How do we look at performance management holistically and make the process more accurate? There are some performance management round tables that begin with, “Joe in 2012…”

Hold on.

We are in 2018 and the year of evaluation is 2018, what Joe did in 2012 is not relevant in 2018. This is a sure sign of association and allegiance bias. Organizations try hard to line up SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timely) but subjectivity creeps in and the end result turns out to be anything but smart.

Additionally, the bell curve has messed up with most evaluation and compensation platforms. Trying to bring statistical science and natural phenomena in the mix sounded exciting in the beginning, but organizations soon realized that years of implementing the bell curve had left the groups with the bar being set so high that it wasn’t even visible. Forcing someone to be rated a 2 when they clearly are a 3 shifted the problem to horse trading. Most organizations, therefore, are moving away from the bell curve.

Since the process put so much pressure on the HR, the leadership and the people – not including loss of time and resources – most organizations now prefer a once a year process. The rate of change in market conditions, business plans and the need to respond with faster change have thrown notions of the yearly review out of the window. Continuous performance evaluation is now the norm and the need.

New age platforms like peopleHum, or www.peoplehum.com/#blog, are catering to the new age needs in performance management. Find out how the Nurture pillar of peopleHum can add value by increasing effectiveness, accuracy, and speed to your performance management process. Conduct One-on-Ones, set goals, and implement continuous feedback cycles that are objective and driven by the latest advances in machine learning.

Help save valuable time, money, and resources by automating and making the process recurring and trending. You could measure everything you need to achieve a more aligned and integrated workplace. Bring the Future of Work to your workplace today with peopleHum!

Try peopleHum today – www.peoplehum.com/#blog

The Hummer @peopleHum

Get the Hum!