Managing Complexity without Compromising Your Review Process
When a fast-paced, growing company signs-on with a new Performance Management software, they have high expectations for the value it will add to their corporate framework; streamlined communication, greater accountability, more frequent check-ins, more robust reporting features, to name a few features. Their expectations are high, as they should be, and their intentions are noble, as they always are. But before they begin compiling a portfolio of flowcharts, modules, performance tables, and spreadsheets, those tasked with the implementation should consider the following:
- The most effective employee experiences usually steer clear from unnecessary steps and processes. Rather, they focus on increasing productivity and quality of work.
- If employees that feel their performance management system is easy to execute and serves a distinct purpose, they are more likely to embrace their system
- If employees believe their performance management system is cumbersome and unnecessarily complex, they may become inherently untrusting of the process, feel micromanaged, and therefore, less likely to engage with the system.
The benefit of having a clear and concise performance management process is apparent, but sometimes not so easy to execute in practice. Sound like your organization? Here a few ideas to get you on the right track:
Set your priorities based on the immediate value added
Chances are, when you began sending RFP’s for a new performance management software, you probably had 1-2 features that were ‘must haves’. Keep those features front and center of your implementation, even if there were other ‘bells and whistles’ you may have been interested in during your sales demos. You can also enhance or supplement your process later.
Was your priority to automate your pre-existing review process? Great. Focus on transitioning your forms into your software and setting up a system that mimics what you’d done in the past.
Was your top priority to increase engagement? Rather than attempting to use multiple features for this one purpose, focus on the type of engagement you are looking to enhance, and instead work exclusively in feature that will best get you to your desired outcome. In doing so, you’ll be able to establish a standardized process and promote more consistent product usage across your organization
If your objective is better accountability, perhaps start exclusively within a goal setting feature so that your employees can get in the habit of using of setting and tracking their goal progress and develop a cadence around how they monitor their progress. In doing so, employees will feel that they are setup for success as they become more adept as using they continue to use the system successfully.
Be intentional with your reporting features
When it comes to analyzing your data, sometimes less is more. While the reporting structure may be designed to be robust to accommodate different organization’s needs, it doesn’t mean necessarily mean that their needs are your needs, or that you should adopt every conceivable report type to stay relevant. Hone down on the type of information you are looking to extract from your company’s reports and create a process that will bring you specifically to those reports. Overquantifying your employees can lead to disengagement, and may not come with tangible benefits to your organization’s compensation model. Even companies like General Electric and Microsoft have conceded that complex processes don’t lead to reliable data. And that doesn’t address the degree of subjectivity that can be associated with performance management driven reports.
In short, reporting features, when used strategically and specifically, can undoubtedly be a great resources when identifying your workforce’s strengths and weaknesses. But over-usage or making an attempt to over quantify your workforce, when simpler, more qualitative methods can be adopted can be counterproductive to its initial purpose.
Re-evaluate and make adjustments as needed
There’s no shame in looking back at the end of a year or few years and deciding what’s working and what needs to be tweaked. Companies like Regeneron and Deliotte, both examined the efficacy of their performance management processes. In doing so, they made strategic changes their previous processes, and their newly created system was adopted with high levels of success across the board.
The readjustment phase for your company can be more subtle. If you noticed that employees were quick to go in and set their goals at the beginning of Q1 but haven’t been so diligent about going in to update their goals in Q2 and Q3? Maybe it’s time to think about implementing a check-in. Conversely, if you noticed that review form responses become more spare and less detailed throughout the year? Maybe it’s time to reduce the frequency of your check-ins and/or switch up your question types to elicit more detailed responses. The benefit of starting simple and re-evaluating subsequently is it gives you will not only have the bandwidth to zero-in on your existing process, but also the clarity and experience to identify strengths and/or opportunities to make adjustments.