Why Can't HR Solve the Performance Management Puzzle?

Why can't HR seem to solve the problem of performance management?  After decades of best practices research, an endless search for the right forms/criteria/ratings scales, and enormous investments in technology, it seems the best solution we can put on the table is a call to throw in the towel. 

Perhaps the answer boils down to this.  The reality is that performance management is not an HR problem at all; it is a management problem.  So says Howard Risher, in a terrific new article Getting Performance Management on Track (Compensation and Performance Review).

The “performance management system” is simply a place to store information and a form for managers to document their assessment of how their people perform.  The problems arise in the way managers carry out their responsibility; continuing focus on the system design will not solve the problem.

Performance management is or should be a day-to-day responsibility of managers and supervisors. HR can provide the forms, send reminders and provide training and advice, but the HR community should not assume responsibility for what should be an important aspect of each manager’s job.

Branding performance management as an HR function has relegated it to the realm of administrative tasks.  Yet what could be more a more critical management charge, in the age of knowledge work, than helping employees realize - and the organization effectively "extract" - the true value of their knowledge and capabilities?

How do we, then, move away from the old HR-owned, command-and-control vision of performance management to a manager-centered process which rises to the challenge of drawing high performance from today's knowledge worker?

The article highlights the importance of preparing and holding supervisors accountable for the management of employee performance, and it also discusses a number of emerging strategies, including:

• The improved use of analytics and multi-rater feedback (ala Google's "Quest to Build a Better Boss") to develop managers' performance management skills.
• Putting managers, as the key "customers", at the center of the performance management system design process.

Check out the article for more ideas and potential strategies.

Got a success story to tell?  Dr. Risher is currently writing a book on the topic and would love to hear from you.  Contact him at [email protected].

Image courtesy of instructables.com

Comments

[Bradford]

I think focusing on supervisors/managers is also wrong! Performance comes from the employee. Performance is difficult to coerce from the outside, whether you are management or HR.

Those of us who run our businesses, are independent consultants, are researchers, innovators do not need performance management (we find interesting work and do it, all performance is internally generated). It is a pull, not a push model of work/discovery/learning.

Do you think Apple tightly manages those working on a new product? No, they get out of the way and let the talented people do their thing. (Apple does tightly manage info leaks about their products).

With most knowledge workers, the less you "manage" the better! Maybe supervisors should help remove obstacles???

[Bill Salacuse]

Another feature of the 'old HR-owned' model of performance management (PM)is that it is usually reflective in its scope and is not primarily future-focused. Future-focused PM creates a collaboration or shared strategy between managers and employees that aims for the intersection of the employee's career goals and the needs of the organization (or what the manager needs in the future from the role that the employee fills).

Since this intersection lies somewhere in the future, managers and employees need (and want) to come together much more frequently than once a year to discuss the employees progress.

[HR Software Packages]

I agree with multi-rater feedback. This widens the scope and brings a whole new POV to the system.

[Mark]

Fascinating and highly relevant stuff here. Thanks for writing on this, Ann, and for everyone's comments. I tend to agree with what you said, Anne, about it not being HR's job to get PM right. Managers contribute to this, of course, but I really think it starts with the executive leadership answering, and acting on, questions like: What type of company do we want to create? What does the ideal culture look like? And what kind of people do we bring on to sustain that culture? That evolution of thinking aids PM because then you run into far less of a situation of HR, managers, or some combination of the two having to spend an inordinate amount of time getting "square" people fitting into "round" pegs to produce optimum results (top quality work within an environment of high engagement and camaraderie).

I also like what Bill said about, for future-focused PM, the necessity of managers and employees coming together frequently. In my experience, at my employer that studies people practices and their impact on the bottom line in small businesses, I think this is an inherent advantage that they have versus their larger competitors.

[Ann Bares]

Bradford:

Of course performance comes from the employee. I don't think many of us would argue with that assertion. But I don't think the concept of good management is inconsistent with self-motivation. Even (I would argue - especially) self-motivated workers benefit from expectation setting, guidance, coaching, feedback and (to your point) assistance in identifying and removing the obstacles to good performance. Merely finding interesting work and doing it may not be what the organization needs to better serve its customers.

Bill:

Agree on the importance of a future-based perspective - and on the importance of ongoing (rather than annual) performance conversations between the employee and the manager.

HRSP:

Agree that multi-rater feedback offers great potential to performance enhancement when handled effectively. Unfortunately, it isn't always done effectively. See the following...

http://www.compensationforce.com/2011/03/360-feedback-powerful-tool-no-substitute-for-people-management.html

Mark:

Great points and I agree about the process starting with thoughtful foundation setting at the executive leadership level. Without that, management-centered performance management is hard pressed to really get off the ground.

Thanks - all - for the thoughtful comments and observations!

[Human Resource Management System]

True, managers should also be made accountable for their employees' work. That way, they truly MOTIVATE, and not merely scare the wits out of their employees.

[Jasmine Smith]

This article is unique, original and engaging. You've captured my attention your use of persuasive terminology and logical points. Thank you for this useful information. I will be back to read more of your articles.