Human_Capital_Management- Module 2 - Part B.ppt

Human_Capital_Management- Module 2 - Part B.ppt

• 1.
  Human Capital Management-Module 2
• 2.
  What is Performance? Performanceis what is expected to be delivered by an individual or a set of individuals within a time frame. What is expected to be delivered could be stated in terms of results, tasks and quality, with specification of conditions under which it is to be delivered. Performance of an individual in organizational setting is defined as the output delivered by an individual in relation to a given role during a particular period of time under the set of circumstances operating at that point of time
• 3.
  Performance Appraisal  Performanceappraisal refers to the assessment of an individual’s performance on the job in a systematic way
• 4.
  Appraisal Process –Steps in PA  Objectives of appraisal  Establish performance standards  Communicate job expectations/performance standards  Design appraisal programme Formal vs Informal appraisal Whose performance should be rated? Who are raters? What should be rated? When should the assessment be done?  Measurement of performance  Comparison of performance with the standards  Discussing the performance results with the employees  Use of appraisal data
• 5.
  Methods of Performanceappraisal  Rating scale  Checklist  Forced choice method  Forced distribution method  Critical incidents method  Performance tests and observations  Essay method  Group appraisal method  Comparative evaluation approaches  Ranking method  Paired-comparison method
• 6.
   MBO (Managementby Objectives)  BARS (Behavioral Anchored Rating Scale)  Assessment centres  3600 appraisal  7200 appraisal  Check in
• 7.
  Problems of rating/appraisal  Leniency or severity error  Central tendency  Halo error/effect  Stereotyping  Favouritism  Primacy effect  Recency effect  Spill over effect
• 8.
  Challenges/ Issues inPerformance appraisal  Lengthy & time consuming process  Lack of clarity regrading performance expectations  Inadequate support from line managers  Less focus on discussing performance results  Less frequency of conducting performance reviews  Lack of synchronization between performance appraisal system and other HR sub systems
• 9.
  A systematic processfor improving organizational performance by developing the performance of individuals and teams. PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
• 10.
  PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PERFORMANCEMANAGEMENT Focus is on performance appraisal and generation of ratings Focus is on performance management. Emphasis is on performance improvement of individuals, teams and the organizations Annual exercise Continuous process Designed and monitored by the HR department Designed by the HR department but to be monitored by the respective departments Static process Dynamic process Limited approach Comprehensive approach
• 11.
  Trends in PerformanceManagement  Across the world, firms are replacing annual reviews with frequent, informal check- ins between managers and employees.  Technology companies such as Adobe, Dell, Microsoft, and IBM have led the way. They’ve been joined by a number of professional services firms (Deloitte, Accenture).  Without question, rethinking performance management is at the top of many executive teams’ agendas, but what drove the change in this direction? Many factors. In a recent article, a Deloitte manager referred to the review process as “an investment of 1.8 million hours across the firm that didn’t fit our business needs anymore.”  Accenture learned that 75% of its review process was devoted to talking about employees, leaving only 25% for actually talking to them. Source: The Performance Management Revolution by Peter Cappelli, And Anna Tavis – Harvard Business Review
• 12.
  DELOITTE Deloitte has focusedon simplifying its performance management process. All managers answer four future- focused statements about every team member, at the end of every project (or once per quarter for long-term projects).
• 13.
  These four statements,together known as a ‘Performance Snapshot’, are as follows: 1) Given what I know of this person’s performance, and if it were my money, I would award this person the highest possible compensation increase and bonus. This features a five-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” and measures overall performance and a person’s unique value to the organization. 2) Given what I know of this person’s performance, I would always want him or her on my team. This uses the same five-point scale and measures ones’ ability to work well with others. 3) This person is at risk for low performance. Using a yes/no responses, this identifies problems that might harm the customer or the team. 4) This person is ready for promotion today. This asks for a yes/no response, measuring potential.
• 14.
   The PerformanceSnapshot is complemented by regular ‘check in’ conversations between managers and staff.  Their aim is to make it as easy for managers as possible to assess performance. A further business driver was to save time and money since their previous approach reportedly saw around two million hours spent on form filling, meetings and arguing back and forth over ratings.
• 15.
  ADOBE •Adobe discarded performancemanagement forms and questionnaires and now doesn’t have a formal rating or ranking system. They expect managers and employees to undertake a continuous process of feedback and improvement (known as ‘Check-In’). Their approach is shaped by three underlying principles: 1) Managers are to convey clearly what is expected of each team member 2) Everyone is expected to give and receive feedback in a constructive way 3) Check-In should provide opportunities for professional growth
• 16.
  PMS at Google Monthly performance check-ins (part of regular 1:1 meetings that also comprise other themes such as career development, coaching, etc.  Annual Upward Feedback Survey, a feedback review where managers are reviewed by their direct reports  Meritocracy, or compensating people unequally, based on their perceived performance  Focus on OKRs (Objectives and Key Result Areas)  The employee starts with a self-assessment, which is followed by peer-reviews, whose authors are only visible to managers
• 17.
  Calibration After all datahas been collected, in the form of self-reviews and peer-reviews and results achieved are understood, managers draft a rating for their employees, based on the following scale:  Needs improvement  Consistently meets expectations  Exceeds expectations  Strongly exceeds expectations  Superb
• 18.
  Outputs  After therating is closed, managers go on to hold two meetings: one where feedback is given, taking into account peer reviews and managers’ impressions of their employees, and another where compensation and promotion decisions are communicated.  The two conversations are held in different meetings and at least a month apart from each other in order to ensure their quality.