The Client
A mid-sized technology company had outgrown its performance management program.
Business growth and the resultant increase in workforce had rendered a lengthy, paper-based performance management program
obsolete. Managers' and employee' low satisfaction with the process led to a formal initiative to improve the old program
possibly through automation.
The Challenge
The initial phase of the project involved a current state assessment that revealed
that simply automating the program would not cure the program of its many problems, improve performance, and turnaround satisfaction
levels.
How We Helped
Analysis of the audit data resulted in five key areas for process improvement:
Goal Management - The goal management process embedded in the program
was not aligned with the business outcomes and metrics used to run the business.
Performance Accountability - The design of the current program left managers
responsible for too many steps which created bottlenecks and did not encourage employees to take ownership of their own performance
end-to-end.
Performance Management - The complexity and lengthy formal documentation
process caused line management to focus the majority of their time on administration rather than real-time goal planning,
feedback and coaching with their staff.
Quality and Compliance - The lengthy documentation did not fulfill any
HR compliance need and actually created the opposite effect. HR could barely keep up with timely quality reviews of incoming
performance documentation.
Motivation and Engagement - Overall management and employee frustration
with the quality timeliness, and consistency of the program was beginning to put the company's morale and credibility at risk.
The next phase of the project was broken down into five deliverables: 1) process
redesign, 2) change plan/communications, 3) software selection/customization, 4) education and development, and 5) implementation.
A process improvement team mapped out the current process. Best practices in performance
management were researched and applied in a structured way to design a new improved process. The most critical process improvement
involved designing a stronger linkage between business outcomes and the individual employee's performance expectations. Instead
of setting goals that tended to "micro-manage" the employee, we built a process that enabled the manager to set broader goals
derived from business results within the performer's job scope. This enabled the employee to "see the forest for
the trees" and freed up the manager to focus on performance coaching rather than task management.
Process gaps between the current and future states were identified so that a comprehensive
change plan could be developed to prepare stakeholders for the new process. Communications began early once a future state
was defined in order to prepare everyone for the change. No matter how welcome the process changes, we found pockets of resistance
at all levels of the company.
Having the process blueprint designed upfront, enabled the company to select
the automated tool that had the best fit to the process requirements. A tool was selected and customized to the company's
requirements.
Education and development were key to the change plan. A goal-based program was
designed around the new process and key changes (e.g., setting clear performance expectations, clarifying accountability,
defining valid business outcomes, and giving performance feedback). This learning approach "wrapped around" training users
on the new software. We expanded the training audience from management to all employees (a group often overlooked in performance
management competency development). Ongoing, the training was rolled into the onboarding program for all new hires.
An implementation plan was deployed on a rolling schedule that enabled the company
to introduce the new performance management changes in waves. This approach helped the company to address change management
issues on a more manageable scale and solve any "day two" issues with the software. HR was able to monitor the adoption through
reporting mechanisms and address any ongoing issues.
Success
In the end, automation was probably the
least challenging change. The greatest challenge was creating true improvement to a "broken" process, reinforcing performance
accountability all the way "down the line", and helping managers to learn how to manage by business outcome rather than tasks.
Automation did create time efficiencies that allowed managers to shift their time from administering performance after the
fact to real-time coaching for performance. Employees were more satisfied with their greater role and understanding of
the process. Participants who completed the educational program rated their overall satisfaction an average 4.4 out of 5 with
the new process and tool.
