Hindustan Times (Delhi)

The state of per­for­mance man­age­ment sys­tem in In­dia

SUR­VEY FIND­INGS De­spite most or­ga­ni­za­tions hav­ing some as­sess­ment mech­a­nism in place, man­agers and em­ploy­ees are still skep­ti­cal that per­for­mance man­age­ment adds value

- Nan­dita Mathur nan­dita.m@htlive.com Write to varun­tan­don@saltodeefe.com for more de­tails.

Per­for­mance ap­praisal has al­ways been a closed room dis­cus­sion re­sult­ing in a lot of mis­con­cep­tions among the team and the in­di­vid­ual em­ploy­ees. The sys­tem of per­for­mance man­age­ment aims at creat­ing a high-per­for­mance en­vi­ron­ment, in­spire em­ploy­ees and achieve busi­ness and in­di­vid­ual goals. But how ef­fec­tive is it?

Gur­gaon- based Salto Dee Fe Con­sult­ing Ser­vice con­ducted a re­search on the State of Per­for­mance Man­age­ment Sys­tem (PMS) in In­dia in June-july 2017.The sur­vey re­vealed that achieve­ment of busi­ness goals (iden­ti­fied by 41% re­spon­dents), forms the pri­mary ob­jec­tive of PMS in In­dian com­pa­nies.

Com­pen­sa­tion de­ci­sions and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of strong/weak per­form­ers as per rat­ings/rank­ings are also key ob­jec­tives of the process. The sur­vey also re­vealed that 57% of the re­spon­dents are not sat­is­fied with their ex­ist­ing PMS.

Ac­cord­ing to the sur­vey re­sults, three key ar­eas re­quire im­prove­ment. These have been clas­si­fied un­der three heads: Man­ager Re­lated , Em­ployee Re­lated and Process Re­lated.

For the man­ager, the top two ar­eas of im­prove­ment are Man­ager bias and their abil­ity to have dif­fi­cult con­ver­sa­tions with the in­di­vid­u­als. One of the em­ployee re­lated is­sues that sur­faced based on the sur­vey re­sults is set­ting ap­pro­pri­ate goals.

There were two is­sues re­lated to the process. One of them is around trans­parency in the process where re­spon­dents shared that they were not very clear about how their as­sess­ment is com­pleted. They are also not very sure on how to rate be­hav­iour re­lated el­e­ments.

The sur­vey re­veals that about 25% of the re­spon­dents are look­ing for­ward to more trans­parency in the sys­tem fol­lowed by 20% plan­ning for im­ple­men­ta­tion of on­go­ing feed­back in ap­praisals and 17% are not look­ing at any change in the PMS.

The trans­parency of the process can be im­proved by an on­go­ing feed­back cul­ture as it helps in over­com­ing un­cer­tain­ties. Mak­ing the process rans­par­ent re­quires a se­ries of changes start­ing with the tools/re­sources avail­able for pro­vid­ing con­struc­tive feed­back.

Dig­i­tal tools can be help­ful for the col­lec­tion of bet­ter qual­ity data as well as lead to time-sav­ing and cost-sav­ing. Re­puted or­ga­ni­za­tions like GE will now give more con­stant feed­back about their em­ploy­ees’ work through an app “PD@GE,” which stands for “per­for­mance de­vel­op­ment at GE.” When asked if their cur­rent or­ga­ni­za­tion is ready to im­ple­ment a con­tin­u­ous feed­back sys­tem, only 47% of the re­spon­dents de­picted a “YES” with a ma­jor ob­sta­cle be­ing the lack of man­ager’s ca­pa­bil­ity to give con­struc­tive feed­back fol­lowed by lack of ori­en­ta­tion to­wards devel- op­ing em­ploy­ees.

Man­agers at times dis­cern per­for­mance man­age­ment as ex­ces­sively sub­jec­tive, time-con­sum­ing and un­help­ful for the de­vel­op­ment of em­ploy­ees as they fail to la­bel the dif­fer­ences in per­for­mance.

PMS is a build­ing block of or­ga­ni­za­tional suc­cess. Hence, not sur­pris­ingly, vir­tu­ally all or­ga­ni­za­tions have in place some type of per­for­mance man­age­ment sys­tem. Yet, from this re­port, we can see that man­agers and em­ploy­ees are still skep­ti­cal that per­for­mance man­age­ment adds value and some even con­sider this as a waste of time and re­sources. This is also be­cause most sys­tems fo­cus ex­clu­sively on nar­row and eval­u­a­tive as­pects such as per­for­mance ap­praisal rather than look­ing at the broad prob­lems it can solve.fo­cus­ing on defining goals and fol­low­ing it up with con­struc­tive feed­back and coach­ing can help make the process more valu­able for the or­ga­ni­za­tions.

Great goals can be de­fined by fol­low­ing keep­ing the goals SIM­ple i.e. Spe­cific, Im­por­tant and mea­sur­able. It is im­por­tant to de­fine a right num­ber of goals with the right amount of stretch to en­sure em­ploy­ees are mo­ti­vated to achieve the same.

In the case of feed­back, most of the firms lack an on­go­ing feed­back cul­ture. Feed­back helps in ac­knowl­edg­ing and im­prov­ing per­for­mance as a whole. 70% of the or­ga­ni­za­tions, glob­ally, are plan­ning to im­ple­ment con­tin­u­ous feed­back sys­tem.

This re­search re­it­er­ates the fact that em­ploy­ees are look­ing for con­tin­u­ous feed­back on their goals and be­hav­iours. Tools/ re­sources to pro­vide struc­tured in­puts would help in bet­ter com­mu­ni­ca­tion and strengthen the con­nec­tion and col­lab­o­ra­tion among the team. It’s high time for the in­dus­try to adopt an em­ployee-friendly sys­tem that can be used for pro­vid­ing/re­quest­ing feed­back on nec­es­sary be­hav­iours. It can solve the man­agers’ in­abil­ity to pro­vide con­struc­tive feed­back and the need for PMS to change its ori­en­ta­tion to­wards the de­vel­op­ment of em­ploy­ees that can im­prove the over­all ecosys­tem.

 ?? GETTY IM­AGES ?? Dig­i­tal tools can be help­ful for the col­lec­tion of bet­ter qual­ity data
GETTY IM­AGES Dig­i­tal tools can be help­ful for the col­lec­tion of bet­ter qual­ity data

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India