Approaches to Performance Change Management
Discuss about the Employee Engagement Through Effective Performance.
Performance management has been the key to successful management systems functioning in most of the corporate firms in today’s world. It is the performance of the employees that determine the smooth and efficient functioning of a firm and helps in efficient production generation (Mone & London, 2018). The employees and the workers associated with the firm should be trained and assessed in such a way that they are ready for any kind of stress management while keeping their quality of work at the highest level. This calls for efficient capacity development techniques and performance regulation and assessment (Buckingham & Goodall, 2015). Six of the top companies that apply the concept of performance change management are Accenture, Google, General Electric, Eli Lilly and Cargill. Deloitte being one of the top multinational firms operating in the financial industry is also increasingly trying to employ methods of performance change management. Like any other process involved with management of a system that goes through evolution, the methods of managing and dealing with challenges related to the management of performance of the employees are also changing and evolving. In this report we analyse and critically evaluate the methods employed by Deloitte to better manage its employees and carry out even more effective performance regulation.
Organisations involved with huge mass of people with each one of them having an important role to play often apply different approaches and strategies to deal with the situation of performance management (Chowdhary et al., 2014). Widely the firms apply five different approaches of performance change management to manage the performance of employees in relation to the existing goals and objectives of the firm. The five approaches are enlisted as follows:
- Behavioural Approach- This method uses certain vertical scales that are dependent on scales or anchors pre decided by employees at the managerial level. The employees are ranked on these anchors on the basis of their performance. This is one of the oldest used methods (Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015). The overall score based on the anchors that the employees gain is maintained and recorded with managers which help them to assess the performance of the employees in the long run.
- Attribute Approach – In this approach the employees are judged and assessed on the basis of a few decided parameters like judgement of a situation, communication, problem solving and many more such skills (Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015).
- Comparative Approach – In this approach the performance and the productivities of different employees are measured and compared against one another as highest or lowest in order to instil the spirit of competition and also ensure that the average level of productivity is maintained at the desired level for the firm (Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015).
- Quality Approach- This approach helps the firm to cater to the services of the customers by reducing the number of errors or problems in the services provided (Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015). This essentially includes evaluation of both the performance of the individuals as well as the employees.
- Result Approach- This method is applied by firms when they want to measure the extent to which the objectives of the firm are being met the employees (Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015). The performances of the employees are then monitored based on which they receive feedbacks.
Which of these will be applied by the firm and used to monitor the performance and credibility of the employees depend on the needs, goals and suitability of these concepts to the existing situation of the firm.
Deloitte as a firm has realised in recent years the impetus it needs to imply on the way in which the performance of its employees are evaluated and managed (hbr.org, 2015). This is so because the productivities of the employees were not in line with the changing objectives of the firm. The firm is now going to reduce and completely remove the use of old tools like 360 degree feedbacks, differentiated objectives and once a year review tools (hbr.org, 2015). It is instead going to apply its focus on parameters of agility and flexibility, speed, collection of reliable data, constant learning and evolution and being a perfect fit for the organisation.
Deloitte’s Performance Change Management Strategies
The firm has been using the concept of result approach for the performance management of the workers by setting proper objectives at the beginning of every financial year and after the completion of the project reviewing the performance of the employees and then providing them with feedbacks (hbr.org, 2015). However, research conducted by the firm over time has proven that managers would spend hours together in discussing how efficient the outcomes of the process involved with the project were rather than on discussing how each individual contributed to the process which is increasingly being carried out now.
The next approach being followed by Deloitte was that of the comparative approach wherein; the employees were rated on the basis of their performance. However, on careful investigation this method was proven to be inefficient as the strategy of rating depends on the person who is rating the other. The type of ratings that the employee is receiving effectively depends on the how strong or lenient the person rating is. In fact the ratings reveal more about the person providing the ratings than the person whose performance is being rated (hbr.org, 2015). This is exactly why the firm is now employing the technique of placing the team leader in the shoes of the employee who is being rated and is being asked to evaluate what he would do to improve the performance being delivered by the employee currently. The team leaders were asked to answer effectively four questions which are enlisted below:
- Which employee in the team would he provide the highest amount of compensation for his work if it were his money that he would have to distribute?
- Which team members would he keep in his team as constants given their level and quality of performance?
- Which team member does he think is exposed to a low risk of low performance?
- Which is the team member who is already ready for a promotion?
These questions reduce the ambiguities related to the entire process of rating and also help in generating and collecting data that can be used for the longer run (hbr.org, 2015). It also improves the consistency of the system and helps in identifying the section of employees who should be awarded and compensated or even promoted to higher levels of hierarchy. This helps the firm in building a “performance snapshot”.
The third measure of change that Deloitte has introduced in the field of performance change management is that of improving the already existing performance level of the employees in a team. This aspect of fuelling the performance of the employee is done regular checking conversations conducted by the team leads with each and every member of their teams at least once a week. This maintains the frequency with which the performance is managed. The frequency of these checking conversations being less than once a week can cause ambiguity and vagueness in the performance management of the employees (hbr.org, 2015). These conversations are then used by the managers to help the employees to form a set of strengths and weaknesses that they posses and these are in turn shared with and used by all team members to enhance their performance capabilities in the context of productivity.
Accenture’s Performance Change Management Strategies
On the issue of transparency in the methods and techniques of evaluation of performance the mangers of Deloitte find it significant and important to keep the evaluation and monitoring process unknown to the employees as in that case the performance of the employees are sugar coated and the real abilities and attributes are not brought to light which make it ambiguous and difficult for the managers to monitor and assess the performance properly and accurately.
Though most of the multinational companies are increasingly trying to employ newer methods of evaluating and analysing the performance of the employees some companies still follow the old and traditional and concepts and consider them to bet fit the need of the hour. One such firm is Accenture where the old methods of performance management are still used along with their evolution and adaptation to the changing objectives of the firm. This firm still uses the concepts of rating the employers and once a year review of the performance of the employees(accenture.com, 2018). It still uses the concepts of a 360 degree tool that provides feedbacks to the employees once a year depending on the extent to which the employees are able to reach the objectives prescribed for them. However, just like Deloitte the firm also has introduced a few changes which align in the direction of continuous evaluation of the progress and performance of the employees in which the team leaders are required to schedule check meetings and one on one conversation with each team member so that their performances and capacity utilisation are monitored and well maintained. However, these conversations and meetings unlike Deloitte are not only in the form of formal frameworks and schedules but can happen either formally or informally at any point in time whether once or more than once a week or may even take place once in two weeks.
The most important difference in the performance management changes introduced by the two firms lie in the space of Accenture providing and receiving help from P&G to cater to the changing needs of the firm based on employee productivity and efficiency (accenture.com, 2015). Being associated with the consulting, strategising and technological sector, Accenture uses high level data and statistical systems for maintaining the records of performance of the employees (accenture.com, 2015). This enhances the ability of the firm to make well informed and accurate decision making in the field of employee performance management (accenture.com, 2018). It also helps the firm to take faster and easier talent decisions with lesser effort manually like Deloitte.
Comparison of Deloitte and Accenture’s Performance Change Management Techniques
Unlike Deloitte where no risks involved with the employees are addressed or seen as a matter of concern, Accenture employs high level of programs to monitor and mitigate risks associated with employee performance and the takes steps to fuel the performance growth for them (accenture.com, 2018).
In fact the firm uses the latest applications and programs to judge if the employees being hired are the best fit for the firm or not. These applications and programs are in turn innovated and improvised every quarter of the year. Accenture has even extended this service to P&G so that it too can hire the right people for the right purpose at the right time (accenture.com, 2015). All the approaches used by the firm are essentially based on the quality and attribute approach as this makes it easier to both obtain and process data related to the performance of the workers.
The firm has specifically focussed on the field of recognition and awards in providing the employees the best ways of motivation and enthusiasm and has made sure that the team leaders take full responsibility of the people working under them and that their personal goals align with the goals of the team and the firm as a whole (accenture.com, 2015). The firm also believes in keeping the process and measures of evaluation and monitoring of the performance of the employees transparent and very honest unlike Deloitte. The firm believes that even if the measures are opened up to the people and employees the results of the assessments of their performances will not be biased as these are calculated completely on the basis of data and models with attributes that are tangible and can be completely and precisely measured unlike in case of Deloitte.
The process of self evaluation is one where the individual strengths and weaknesses are used by a complete team to work together. However, in Accenture the method that is followed after self evaluation is a little different where the strengths and weaknesses of the individuals and the strengths and weaknesses of the team are plotted into one another in order to achieve long run objectives of the firm as a whole and not just the team.
However, again one of the biggest similarities for the two firms lies in the area of changing their idea of providing ratings to the employees. Instead they are increasingly using methods and techniques that help in understanding the capability and power of the employees both innovate new technologies and organise their work as well as the team’s work at the same time instead of just working hard and climbing up the corporate ladder. The extent to which the employees can promote globalisation and internationalisation is also becoming an increasingly important attribute of measuring the extent of capability and productivity in terms of performance.
Conclusion
Another important measure of performance that is now being considered is the ability of the employees to work out of their comfort zones and push the boundaries of their performance levels which were not considered to be of this much importance earlier and the employee was just expected to meet his roles and responsibilities in the best possible way (accenture.com, 2018).
Conclusion
Thus to conclude it can be asserted that in the wake of changing demand patterns and ongoing trends in the industry, each firm needs to change its objectives based on which the method of performance is changed or monitored. Deloitte as a firm that believes in enhancing the quality of life of its employees and instilling a sense of accountability has also changed the method through which the performance of the employees is monitored and evaluated. The concepts of ratings have been replaced by weekly conversations and sessions of employees with team leads that help them to perform individual development assessment and align their goals and objectives with those of the team. The firm also is applying the strategy or providing feedbacks such that the individuals are able to perform outside their comfort zone and increase the scope and utilization of capabilities. The firm also believes in fuelling the performance of the employees by extending support on the basis of training and development programmes so that their skill sets are enhanced and increased. The firm also believes in keeping the process and parameters of evaluation hidden and a secret as it could lead to biased outcomes. Accenture is another firm that is also focussing on changing the role of feedbacks and sessions held by managers instead of ratings. However, this firm follows a way more data and applications oriented approach and so believes in the concept of transparency unlike Deloitte. Firms should increasingly appoint these rules and regulations and forms of performance management instead of following the old techniques that do not apply to the changed objectives and demand patterns of the customers.
Reference List
(accenture.com, 2018) Available online at: https://www.accenture.com/in-en/company-accenture-ceo-performance-review
Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2018). Employee engagement through effective performance management: A practical guide for managers. Routledge.
Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2015). Reinventing performance management. Harvard Business Review, 93(4), 40-50.
Chowdhary, P.R., Pinel, F.A., Palpanas, T. and Chen, S.K., International Business Machines Corp, 2014. System and method for model-driven dashboard for business performance management. U.S. Patent 8,843,883.
Rosemann, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2015). The six core elements of business process management. In Handbook on business process management 1 (pp. 105-122). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
accenture.com (2015) Available online at: https://www.accenture.com/t20150523T042743__w__/fi-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Industries_2/Accenture-Procter-Gamble-Digitizes-Talent-Management-Processes-Design-Solutions.pdf
(hbr.org, 2015)Available online at: https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-management
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
