| | SEPTEMBER 20199CIOReviewchallenging task.Performance Management Technology should support the organization's culture and business process. The technology should aid in efficiency, not simply offer an online version of an offline process. Having the ability to support real-time coaching conversations and then follow-up with recommendations for learning events is vital to an effective performance strategy. Therefore, and I'll refer you back to the first paragraph, I don't believe standalone performance solutions are viable. Without access to resources that speak to identified gaps in performance, we're only doing half the job. Telling an employee, either directly or through a system, that they have a gap is akin to a Dr. telling a patient they have diabetes and then walking out of the room. Providing holistic solutions that will remedy this gap in performance is a key component of performance management ­ it should not be considered a learning management process. That is why my approach focuses on integrated platforms over best in class or channel delivery ideology.While still confined to one of the major platforms, at least I have the ability to ensure the user experience is a one-stop shop. Within one platform you can search jobs, take an assessment and begin building your performance capability to be considered for future opportunities. I can see and align my work with others, track my progress to goals, and all the while these actions will be visible to my supervisor or available for consideration as the organization grows. I'm of the opinion that "advances" in Performance Systems are only done to differentiate feature sets and position those platforms as more competitive. I don't see any recent changes as solving true performance challenges we face. We've seen the rush to eliminate performance reviews altogether, and while a lofty goal, I think most organizations miss the mark. The entire issue with performance management is that we don't manage performance. This is not a system issue; it speaks to organizational culture. We're using performance systems as a bandage to address our inability to coach in the moment. Since we've failed to hold our teams accountable to a culture of continuous performance improvement, we make up for this by mandating a cadence of forced meetings we affectionally call performance reviews. However, if we actually managed appropriately, Having the ability to support real-time coaching conversations and then follow-up with recommendations for learning events is vital to an effective performance strategyKeith Meyersonwe wouldn't even need these systems we're trying so hard to reinvent.We also use these systems to validate our philosophy of "pay for performance." Having a structured process to record performance data allows us to differentiate pay increases. Without ratings (the theory goes), we would be hard pressed to defend compensation awards. So, organizations that have removed performance reviews have, and please correct me if I'm wrong, failed to address both the issue of coaching in the moment, as well as articulating compensation awards for a pay for performance culture. Ultimately, we have choices. We can continue to use systems as either a means to document achievements or to identify gaps and provide requisite interventions. We can also choose to have multiple disconnected platforms, or one seamless system that may or may not meet all our needs. We could also move towards a channel delivery system, increase engagement but miss out on learning experiences and meaningful data. Or, perhaps we can stop focusing on technology and consider what human interventions could be introduced to solve our challenges. Don't get me wrong, I love my tech.... but I'd also love to see our people managers offline, having real, meaningful and timely performance conversations.
< Page 8 | Page 10 >