http://www.afr.com/business/accounting/afr23accdeloitte-20150728-ghq5wu
Thoughts?
Personally, I think this is a huge step in the right direction, but Im surprised to see Deloitte leading the way considering the Big 4 usually have quite elaborate and ingrained performance management cultures. Ive always thought the anti-PM view was perceived as being quite out there and very new age thinking within HR.
I pretty much agree with everything in the article from a strategic standpoint, Ive always believed that PM is a huge waste of time and money besides being a culture killer. Managers and HR support spends excessive time preparing for it and staff spend excessive energy worrying about it. Besides, in a lot of businesses, there is usually a spike in turnover around that PM season. Managing performance to me is an everyday aspect of a managers role - they should be providing regular feedback to staff. I think when staff have a better idea of where they stand it reduces anxiety and fear, which is a driving influence on satisfaction, engagement and ultimately turnover.
Beyond that I also think it's much better from a risk management standpoint. So many managers use PM to raise issues with staff which should be raised over the course of the year. Some organisations forbid managers from introducing new issues into PM sessions, but quite a few dont. It creates a problem when PM is relied upon for reviewing remuneration, because employees often turn around and claim "if I was told earlier, I would have corrected the behaviour" and that can cause all sorts of nasty IR problems.
Thoughts?
Personally, I think this is a huge step in the right direction, but Im surprised to see Deloitte leading the way considering the Big 4 usually have quite elaborate and ingrained performance management cultures. Ive always thought the anti-PM view was perceived as being quite out there and very new age thinking within HR.
I pretty much agree with everything in the article from a strategic standpoint, Ive always believed that PM is a huge waste of time and money besides being a culture killer. Managers and HR support spends excessive time preparing for it and staff spend excessive energy worrying about it. Besides, in a lot of businesses, there is usually a spike in turnover around that PM season. Managing performance to me is an everyday aspect of a managers role - they should be providing regular feedback to staff. I think when staff have a better idea of where they stand it reduces anxiety and fear, which is a driving influence on satisfaction, engagement and ultimately turnover.
Beyond that I also think it's much better from a risk management standpoint. So many managers use PM to raise issues with staff which should be raised over the course of the year. Some organisations forbid managers from introducing new issues into PM sessions, but quite a few dont. It creates a problem when PM is relied upon for reviewing remuneration, because employees often turn around and claim "if I was told earlier, I would have corrected the behaviour" and that can cause all sorts of nasty IR problems.
