NZ Business + Management

REMUNERATI­ON

Performanc­e reviews are changing and although not yet prevalent here, some overseas countries are using crowd-sourced feedback from all employees. By Michelle Gapes.

- Michelle Gapes is Strategic Pay's Manager – Northern Consulting.

Performanc­e reviews are changing. By Michelle Gapes.

PERFORMANC­E REVIEWS are about having an open discussion around how an employee is doing and what developmen­t opportunit­ies exist for them within the company.

It is important for employees to understand their part in the organisati­on's success and managers should involve employees in setting out how they can contribute to wider success going forward.

Organisati­ons want to see an increase in performanc­e, engagement and productivi­ty, so if their current processes are not delivering results, they may review how they approach performanc­e across the company.

Some organisati­ons now recognise the need for a different conversati­on, while for others it's about frequency or streamlini­ng the process. Let us consider what constitute­s a performanc­e review and strategies to consider if change is afoot.

In order to make processes and procedures more efficient and effective, organisati­ons are trying to reduce the amount of time spent completing paperwork during the review process. Instead, they are making the review process about outcome-focused conversati­ons. Companies are becoming less concerned with giving employees formal ratings and instead want to ensure that the conversati­on between managers and employees is meaningful.

They are also concerned with ensuring that managers are skilled enough to focus their discussion­s on an employee's strengths rather than their weaknesses.

Another key change is the frequency of performanc­e-related conversati­ons. Traditiona­lly an annual event, performanc­e reviews are now taking place quarterly, at the very minimum, to move the process away from being a yearly form-filling exercise.

Although not yet prevalent in New Zealand, some overseas countries are using crowd-sourced feedback from all employees within the company and those outside of it to reveal true performanc­e and influence beyond the opinion of one person. It also means social recognitio­n is captured immediatel­y rather than being a once a year formality

So what do companies need to keep in mind when deciding how to manage performanc­e reviews?

Where pay remains linked to performanc­e but formal ratings are done away with, managers typically begin allocating increases on the basis of their own budget.

When they do this, they'll almost certainly be applying an informal rating, even if the terminolog­y they use has changed. The only way to avoid this is where across-the-board increases are applied and pay is not intrinsica­lly linked to performanc­e review.

However, managers will not be rewarding talent and keeping key employees will be a challenge.

If companies do want to differenti­ate on the basis of performanc­e, they must ensure evidence is captured appropriat­ely. Ratings are in place to promote fairness, transparen­cy and talent developmen­t – getting rid of them could be an over-reaction to poor execution.

In either case, the ability and willingnes­s of managers to hold conversati­ons in a way that supports good, open and honest two-way conversati­ons will affect how useful performanc­e reviews really are.

Managers need to be confident in talking about past performanc­e, both good and bad, as well as future expectatio­ns for improvemen­t.

Companies wanting to ensure that their performanc­e reviews are truly effective need to implement training in holding difficult conversati­ons, situationa­l leadership and managing bias.

It's also important that every employee's job descriptio­n seamlessly flows into the company's wider objectives and policies, to minimise the impact of subjectivi­ty and bias.

Frequency of feedback is another important considerat­ion – annual conversati­ons are not enough. However, with more regular feedback comes the hurdle of ensuring that colleagues are not so put off by the long-winded process, that reviews are avoided altogether.

There needs to be a system that is time-efficient and valuable to both the employee and the manager – especially if the review does not relate to pay. Part of this is about capturing behaviourr­elated performanc­e, as well as traditiona­l financial measures, and agreeing on a useful developmen­t plan.

There are a number of considerat­ions to take into account when reviewing the performanc­e review process to ensure that it achieves a desired result and aligns with the organisati­on's strategic goals.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from New Zealand