HR Analytics Performance Management Changes Peer Post Reply
Write a peer post reply on HR analytics performance management changes.
Peer Post: Something common in all of the plant between Deloitte, Adobe, Amazon, and Accenture are the communication pieces of the performance reviews. Having more frequent conversations about performance is a good way to make sure the employees know where they stand in terms of the goals they are working toward. This also allows the managers to work closely with these employees to make sure they are on track to meet these goals. I am just coming off of a review cycle and can tell you these are not taken seriously in my organization. Employees and managers are not frequently meeting and it is not until the end of the year that the employees really knows where they stand. The goals these employees set for themselves are not challenging and are easily met and there is not a year-over-year progression. There is also manager bias when it comes to the percentages assigned to the evaluations when it comes to merit increase because it is at the manager’s discretion. This could be because an outdated model is still used from the 1970’s for year-end reviews and statistics show that in 2017:
82% of companies find these evaluations a waste of time
41% of companies found manager bias in reviews/merit increases
45% of companies found these evaluations do not motivate the employees (Sloan et al., 2017).
My thought are in line with the newer trends of more frequent communication, learning and development opportunities being available for employees, using data for all groups to see KPI’s, and setting up an environment where goal setting includes a social aspect. At the end of the year, it is difficult to have an employee be told they have not been doing their job when they were not aware of their performance in order to make changes to improve it.
