Case Study

In fact, a study by Korn Ferry titled, "People on a mission" found that consumer companies that focused their employees on the organization's purpose boasted annual growth rates that were nearly triple the annual rate in their sector.If you want to prevent your performance management process from becoming just another blip in a miles-long HR paper trail, you need a clear goal to keep it on track.But if you're like most businesses, you probably have multiple goals, objectives and values guiding your business. Which one should be the focus of your performance management process? It's a tough call. And the answer will always depend on the unique culture of your organization and the industry you're in.From classic innovators to the new and "unusual", here are 9 examples of companies with a clear goal for their performance management processes. Hopefully, these examples will inspire you to create the one that's right for you.

Question 2 (1 point)

"In fact, a study by Korn Ferry titled, "People on a mission" found that consumer companies that focused their employees on the organization's purpose boasted annual growth rates that were nearly triple the annual rate in their sector."

This was likely because:

Question 2 options:

	Managers of the employees in those companies knew how to increase productivity of their employees, resulting in higher outputs.
	Employees and managers who understand the goals of the organization can understand more clearly how their role can contribute to the company's goals.
	Employees who were invested in the stock of the companies knew the goals and decided to do whatever it took to sell the company's goods.
	The collective income of the customers of those consumer organizations went up, and this made it easier for employees to sell the goods.

Like Deloitte, GE is another major name in performance management. Jack Welch's famed "Rank and Yank" approach to performance management has become synonymous with competitive 1980s business culture. But in recent decades, the company has shifted its PM process from one of ruthless evaluation to goal-setting and aspirational guidance (drivers which some would argue were always there.)Though the rank and yank model was effective in improving performance and encouraging candor between managers and employees, it fueled an element of competition that proved counterproductive to the collaborative way in which most businesses must now operate. In perhaps one of the most extreme examples of a performance-management-180, GE now uses a continuous feedback approach. Managers and employees use a performance-tracking mobile app (called PD@GE) that allows managers and employees to make text or audio notes, attach documents and upload handwritten notes which they can later discuss in their next check-in.

Question 3 (1 point)

Jack Welch's famed "Rank and Yank" approach meant that employees were evaluated from best to worst, and the worst performers got fired every year, while the top performers stayed. How did "rank and yank" contradict the goal of collaboration at GE?

Question 3 options:

	Rank and Yank didn't focus employees on performing better for the organizations success, but on performer better than their colleagues in order to keep their jobs, creating a culture of individual competition.
	"Rank and Yank" didn't contradict collaboration, but encouraged employees to work together to perform as well as possible. Those that were terminated were not team players, and that's why they were let go.
	"Rank and Yank" meant that managers were not open and honest feedback, and therefore the performance management system failed. "Rank and Yank" didn't help GE meet any company goals.
	"Rank and Yank" kept employees looking at past performance instead of future performance, which meant that no goals were set. The lack of goals meant that employees didn't have direction on how to improve.

It's one thing when a millennial-run tech startup bucks an ongoing HR trend it's a whole other thing completely when a giant like Microsoft does it. In 2013, the software giant was under increasing heat from former employees to eliminate its cutthroat stack ranking system, prompting Microsoft to become one of the first big-name brands to ditch employee ranking. Instead of sticking to forced timelines and rating curves, Microsoft created a performance management process called "Connects". Similar to PD@GE, Microsoft optimizes their workflows to accommodate for timely feedback based on the rhythm of each part of their business rather than following one timeline for the entire company.

While there is definitely an element of collaboration and development in Microsoft's new system, the real goal is to eliminate the many silos that exist in a company their size and foster a better sense of teamwork in order to act more quickly on changes in the market and avoid becoming the proverbial business Titanic. "The changes we are making are important and necessary as we work to deliver innovation and value to customers through more connected engagement across the company," said former EVP of HR, Lisa Brummel.

Microsoft's new performance management approach aligns with the company's goals because:

Question 4 options:

	The company wanted to get their performance review results faster so that their compensation team could issue compensation adjustments faster and on the timeline for the entire company.
	The company wanted to ensure that feedback was done quickly so that employees always knew how their performance compared to their peers, and the new system means that employees learn their rank more frequently.
	The company wanted more teamwork, speed and agility in the organization, and the new performance management approach enables managers to give feedback more quickly and removes some silos.
	The company's goal of more friendly competition in the organization is supported but the speed of the new performance management system. Employees get feedback right away and can respond quickly.