MANAGEMENT DE LA PERFORMANCE

...

According to a different survey, 6% of Fortune 500 companies have already replaced traditional annual review performance rankings, and the number is growing.

Does it apply in our sector ? Lydia

Whether they’re professional services firms that must develop people in order to compete, companies that need to deliver ongoing performance feedback to support rapid innovation, or retailers that need better coordination between the sales floor and the back office to serve their customers. We observe a success in their sector

Rethinking performance management is at the top of many executive teams’ agendas, but what drove the change in this direction ? Many factors. In a recent article for People + Strategy, a Deloitte manager referred to the review process as “an investment of 1.8 million hours across the firm that didn’t fit our business needs anymore.”

[pic 9]

Deloitte service’s conducted a Survey, and found that 58% of executives felt their system wasn’t driving performance or engagement the way it was men to. To address the problem in their own firm, Deloitte starting by looking at the time it spent on performance reviews.

Like many companies, it was setting objectives for employee at the beginning of the year, rating people after every project, and convening at year’s end to compare ratings and boil every employee’s contributions down, into a single performance number. That whole process took 2 million hours a year. They realized that most of them were focused on the outcome of the process, instead of performance.

But there was another problem: Deloitte’s needs were evolving so quickly, that annual goals couldn’t keep up with them. Managers found that real time discussions were much more valuable. Yet another challenge was inconsistency in skill ratings from one reviewer to another.

In 2014 they study what separated high and low performing teams. Three things mattered most:

- coworker’s commitment to quality

- an inspiring mission

- and the chance to use the strength every day

The third one was the most powerful across the organization. Deloitte executive realized that they needed to spend more time helping people use their strengths.

With that in mind, they sat down to define three mains goals for their new system

The first goal was clear: allow the organization to reward high performers with raises and bonuses. Most performance management system do this, but to do a better job of rewarding performance, the company had to see it more clearly. This was Deloitte’s second critical goal. Executive realize that the person with the best view, was an employee’s immediate team leader. So they stopped asking multipole people for feedback on each employee. Input from the team leader, was enough. Deloitte wanted to do more than just measure and reward performance, it was to improve it.

For ideas on how to reach that final objective, the firm look at the practices of its best team leaders. The best leaders have regular check-ins with team members about current projects. So, Deloitte decided to establish these weekly conversations across the organization. Leaders use them to clarify what is expected, what great works look like, and how each person can excel.

Deloitte believe that the purpose of performance management system, is to see performance accurately, to reward it accordingly, and to inspire even better performance in the future. To support these goals the firm as created new evaluation and coaching rituals. By using frequent immediate conversations about performance, Deloitte has shifted from a focus on the past to a focus on the future.

The new system is radical because it does away with some long-cherished elements of performance management: cascading objectives, annual reviews and 360 degree feedback tools. Instead, the focus is on speed, agility, and constant learning.

[pic 10]

Deloitte new approach overcome one of the biggest problems of traditional rating systems: they are one dimensional. To understand performance, we need to look at many factors. We want our organization to know us, and we want to know ourselves at work and that information can’t be compressed into a single number.

[pic 11]

Japanese people have traditionnaly been thinking that working hard is virtue and training in life.That may come from teachings of Buddhism.

And this way of thinking and working have led to a rapid growth in the 60’s (after the world war II) which have resulted in the rise of the quality of life of all japanese for quite a long time.

And this way of thinking and working have led to a rapid growth in the 60’s (after the world war II) which have resulted in the rise of the quality of life of all japanese for quite a long time.

Japanese companies had to face two majors problems which led to an implementation of performance management scheme.

Firstly, the pillar of the japanese employement system, the « seniority based pay », was not sustainable in an ageing Japanese society. In fact, it is very costly to have such system with an increase number of older employees.

I can illustrate this pbm with a figure : the ratio of persons 55 and older of the total Japanese labour force has increased from 18% in 1985 to 26.8% in 2006

The second reason to give up this scheme is the decline of the economic bublle in the 90s and ans the need to reduce cost. As many companies companies aroud the world, japanese companies have implemented a management per performance system.

2 / A limited impact on the company performance and employee motivation:

However, there has been no clear impact on this changes. This means there has been no relationship between pay-performance sensitivity and firm performance in Japan,

showing that the performance-pay sensitivity does not affect company performance in Japan's large companies.

A study by the Japan Management Association (JMA), conducted in 2004 with a comparatively small sample of only 142 firms, showed similarly limited effects. Only 48.3% of companies which had implemented a pay for performance system for more than 4 years stated improvements in terms of competitiveness and