I’ve spent a large part of the last year writing a book about performance management.
One of the big questions I wrestled with was “how did we get this so wrong?” That question isn’t all that hard to answer when you look at the history of management and discover that it was based on a contractual, compliance-based model.
This helps explain how we ended up with compliance-based processes like the annual performance appraisal and performance improvement plans. They make sense in the historical context in which they were created.
But times have changed. And work has changed. A lot.
Performance management hasn’t.
A majority of organizations are still running these same compliance-based processes today. Taken in the context of our climate of work, they make little or no sense.
Employees hate it. Managers cringe at the mention of performance management. And HR keeps running the system despite knowing that it doesn’t really work.
It’s glaringly obvious that it’s a broken system. It’s been obvious for decades. Why is it taking so long to fix?
This might be the more important question.
Performance is the lifeblood of any organization. Without it, the organization withers and dies. What could be more important than the management of performance?
No one owns it.
Everyone participates. Everyone is impacted.
No one owns it.
Managers are charged with the day to day responsibility of ensuring employee performance. Leaders are broadly responsible for organizational performance. And HR is where the formal, compliance-based processes for the appraisal of performance.
But who is responsible for designing and deploying and
Certainly, HR is the assumed answer.
But, I think I’ve only met a handful of HR professionals in my life who’s primary job role and function was performance management.
This fall, I facilitated a panel of HR leaders at the HR Tech Conference to discuss the evolution of performance management. I asked each of them how performance management fit into their overall HR structure. Each of the four companies was different.
In one case it was part of total rewards (i.e. benefit and comp). In another, it was viewed as part of employee engagement. In another, it was under the banner of employee relations (i.e. compliance).
In two of the four cases, the main reason HR undertook the process of changing performance management was that executive leadership demanded it.
A well-designed performance management system should be the operating system for your organization. It ensures a sustainable and consistent employee experience that unlocks individual and team performance. Most organizations today are still running a performance management operating system written in the 1920’s.
It’s way past time for an upgrade. But, that upgrade will never happen unless you make it a priority.
Every organization should have a role or team dedicated to performance management systems. If you don’t like the phrase “performance management,” then call it performance enablement or performance processes.
It can be in HR or it can be elsewhere. It will depend on your organization.
We would never let something like sales or financials or technology go without an owner who has the responsibility to ensuring process effectiveness.
Why do we allow it with something as vital as the management of performance?
Let’s change that.