There is no doubt that the users of the Performance Management process, as it exists today, have several grievances against it, though it would be incorrect to say that it is a complete failure on the part of the HR function only. As per various reports, disenchantment with the PM process has been on the grounds of purported deficiencies in its objectivity, openness, fairness, feedback, etc.
Objectivity
To my understanding, the objectivity of the PM process depends primarily on identifying and defining the KPAs and KRAs/Goals as clearly as possible. There is also a need to articulate the targets very well, which requires a considerable amount of imagination. The problem initiates in this area, especially with those Goals which cannot be numerically/mathematically expressed. The solution possibly lies in seeking expert help initially and building up targets over a period of time. I say building up because 75% to 85% of the jobs in any organization are generally routine and repeat for several years.
Unfortunately, what we tend to find in most organizations is an attempt to somehow fill up some forms and complete the prescribed paperwork, mostly at the end of the year, instead of correctly working out the targets.
The next problem in this area is the identification of agreed KPIs and Measures, which is also an extremely imaginative area and requires careful articulation. To give you an example, in most organizations, "employee engagement," an important KPA for the HR department, generally has "employee attrition" as its KPI. Can HR be made one hundred percent responsible for attritions happening all over the company? In almost all organizations, this is generally not a choice for HR.
Feedback & Fairness
A standard PM system has "feedback" as part of the process, where an appraiser is supposed to discuss and inform the appraisee about the deficiencies and lacunas in his/her performance vis-à-vis decided agreed targets. This becomes a tricky area because of a lot of subjectivity involved in assessment. If the KRAs are very SMART and measures are specific and pointed, the scope of disparities is substantially reduced.
Besides the above, a lot of grievances on the ground of fairness arise because of integrity issues on the part of the appraiser and a trust deficit between the appraiser and the appraisee, which are purely leadership issues. There are also issues with a few belligerent and stubborn appraisees. To my understanding, it is almost impossible for PM as a process to address these issues, which are related to human emotion.
The famous Microsoft imbroglio with the PM process being practiced there, which made headlines in Forbes, was because of the practice of "forced rating" (based on the bell curve). It is a matter of choice for any organization to accept or reject the "forced rating" part of the process.
I think another serious grievance with the PM process is something not really related to the PM process, but to the subsequent usage of the outcomes of the PM process to disburse annual rewards/increments. Wide differences in financial (and promotional) rewards between exemplary/average/underperformers lead to dissatisfaction. The dissatisfied lot blames the PM process, which is actually incorrect.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Objectivity
To my understanding, the objectivity of the PM process depends primarily on identifying and defining the KPAs and KRAs/Goals as clearly as possible. There is also a need to articulate the targets very well, which requires a considerable amount of imagination. The problem initiates in this area, especially with those Goals which cannot be numerically/mathematically expressed. The solution possibly lies in seeking expert help initially and building up targets over a period of time. I say building up because 75% to 85% of the jobs in any organization are generally routine and repeat for several years.
Unfortunately, what we tend to find in most organizations is an attempt to somehow fill up some forms and complete the prescribed paperwork, mostly at the end of the year, instead of correctly working out the targets.
The next problem in this area is the identification of agreed KPIs and Measures, which is also an extremely imaginative area and requires careful articulation. To give you an example, in most organizations, "employee engagement," an important KPA for the HR department, generally has "employee attrition" as its KPI. Can HR be made one hundred percent responsible for attritions happening all over the company? In almost all organizations, this is generally not a choice for HR.
Feedback & Fairness
A standard PM system has "feedback" as part of the process, where an appraiser is supposed to discuss and inform the appraisee about the deficiencies and lacunas in his/her performance vis-à-vis decided agreed targets. This becomes a tricky area because of a lot of subjectivity involved in assessment. If the KRAs are very SMART and measures are specific and pointed, the scope of disparities is substantially reduced.
Besides the above, a lot of grievances on the ground of fairness arise because of integrity issues on the part of the appraiser and a trust deficit between the appraiser and the appraisee, which are purely leadership issues. There are also issues with a few belligerent and stubborn appraisees. To my understanding, it is almost impossible for PM as a process to address these issues, which are related to human emotion.
The famous Microsoft imbroglio with the PM process being practiced there, which made headlines in Forbes, was because of the practice of "forced rating" (based on the bell curve). It is a matter of choice for any organization to accept or reject the "forced rating" part of the process.
I think another serious grievance with the PM process is something not really related to the PM process, but to the subsequent usage of the outcomes of the PM process to disburse annual rewards/increments. Wide differences in financial (and promotional) rewards between exemplary/average/underperformers lead to dissatisfaction. The dissatisfied lot blames the PM process, which is actually incorrect.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Through your heading of the post "Is the Existing Performance Management Process a Failure & a Blot on HR Function," you have made a sweeping statement. While HR professionals have their own set of problems, painting all with the same brush would not be fair.
The bane of HR professionals lies in getting entangled in jargon. Just two days ago, I met the HR Director of a service company. He gloated over his certificates, systems, and processes. Nevertheless, in more than half an hour of interaction with him, he never mentioned the results accrued from these HR interventions. The basic malaise lies in missing the wood of results in the jargon of trees. The training company through whom I had gotten this assignment had told me to keep this HR Director in good humor. Since these are the very people who give us business, I kept on appreciating him, though my appreciations were false.
The Trouble with KPIs
The trouble with the KPIs is that they are not designed to measure the various costs associated with their business. Superficial measures give superficial results. How many HR professionals are capable of measuring the inventory carrying cost or the cost of lost capacity?
Survey on PMS
Regarding your post, have you done any survey on PMS? If yes, then what was the sample size? Which industries did you choose? Was any variation observed amongst the industries? Your post does not mention any numbers, either from your own study or someone else's. Talking without numbers is a malaise of HR. Are you also affected by this malaise?
If you have not conducted any survey, then should it be assumed that your post is nothing but your perceptions or the arguments made are visceral?
Performance Appraisal vs. Performance Management Process
My second observation is that you have used concepts of Performance Appraisal (PA) for Performance Management Process. It would be a mistake to do that. PA is a subset of PMS; one cannot forget this.
I have been giving my replies on PMS time and again. If you have not seen them, I recommend you go through the following link:
https://www.citehr.com/511936-pms-company.html
You will find a few more links in the above link. You may go through these if you deem fit.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
8046The bane of HR professionals lies in getting entangled in jargon. Just two days ago, I met the HR Director of a service company. He gloated over his certificates, systems, and processes. Nevertheless, in more than half an hour of interaction with him, he never mentioned the results accrued from these HR interventions. The basic malaise lies in missing the wood of results in the jargon of trees. The training company through whom I had gotten this assignment had told me to keep this HR Director in good humor. Since these are the very people who give us business, I kept on appreciating him, though my appreciations were false.
The Trouble with KPIs
The trouble with the KPIs is that they are not designed to measure the various costs associated with their business. Superficial measures give superficial results. How many HR professionals are capable of measuring the inventory carrying cost or the cost of lost capacity?
Survey on PMS
Regarding your post, have you done any survey on PMS? If yes, then what was the sample size? Which industries did you choose? Was any variation observed amongst the industries? Your post does not mention any numbers, either from your own study or someone else's. Talking without numbers is a malaise of HR. Are you also affected by this malaise?
If you have not conducted any survey, then should it be assumed that your post is nothing but your perceptions or the arguments made are visceral?
Performance Appraisal vs. Performance Management Process
My second observation is that you have used concepts of Performance Appraisal (PA) for Performance Management Process. It would be a mistake to do that. PA is a subset of PMS; one cannot forget this.
I have been giving my replies on PMS time and again. If you have not seen them, I recommend you go through the following link:
https://www.citehr.com/511936-pms-company.html
You will find a few more links in the above link. You may go through these if you deem fit.
Thanks,
Dinesh Divekar
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Performance Management Process - Power Point Presentation.pp t