Ratingless Performance Management - Amazon S3€¦ · Movement to ratingless performance management...
Transcript of Ratingless Performance Management - Amazon S3€¦ · Movement to ratingless performance management...
RatinglessPerformance Management
Lisa Harpe, PhD
Peoplefluent Research Institute (PRI)
Risks and Rewards
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Agenda
History of performance ratings
Movement to ratingless performance management
• Components
• Examples
How to reward good performance without ratings
How to include performance in studies if there are no ratings
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
History of Performance
Ratings
• 1900s: Personnel Administration
Movement
• 1920s: Human Relations Movement
• 1940s: Management style
• 1950s:
• 1950 Performance Rating Act
• 1954 Incentive Awards Act
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
• 1960s:
• Employer Employee X
• Salary Reform Act
• 1970s: Performance Management
• Most companies had performance
ratings
• 1980s: MBO
• To address central tendency with
ratings movement to forced
distribution systems led by GE
• 1990s: Dissatisfaction with
performance rating systems Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
• 2000s:- Lawsuits
- Technology
- Challenges
• Remote workers• Geographic dispersion• Increased dissatisfaction
• 2008: ‘Get Rid of Performance
Ratings’ by S. Culbert
• 2009: Reuters survey: 4/5 workers
dissatisfied with performance reviews
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
‘Typical’ Performance Management System
Beginning of Year
• Goal Setting
End of Year
• Manager Provides Ratings
of Employee
• Employee Provides Ratings of Self
• Manager and Employee Meet to Discuss Ratings
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Example Performance Rating Form
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Example Performance Rating Form
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Example Performance Rating Form
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Example Performance Rating Form
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Types of ‘Typical’ Ratings
Categorical
• Competencies
• Goals or Objectives
Overall
• Category weighting
• Assignment or calculation
Preliminary v. final
Midyear v. annual
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Discontent with Ratings
Cumbersome
Poor implementation
Poor training
Bell curve is wrong
Static
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Discontent with Ratings
Poorly equipped to measure performance
today’s workforce
• No measurable output
• Service / knowledge workforce
• Dynamic nature of industry
• Geographically disperse workforce
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Discontent with Ratings
Backward looking
Demotivating
• SCARF hypothesis
Not reflective of performance
• Mount et all (2000)
• Joshi et al (2015)
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Performance Ratings and the Law
Siegel v. Ford
Donaldson v. Microsoft Corp
Jones v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co
Wal-Mart
Novartis
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Going Ratingless
Resources
• Harvard Business Review April 2015
• Culbert book 2008
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Going Ratingless
Throw out ratings, distributions,
annual review meeting
Focus on regular, on-going
feedback
Keep goal setting
Stay flexible
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Key Component: Manager-Employee Discussions
2 options
1. Highly structured conversation
2. Guided conversation
On a regular basis
Emphasize goal setting and adjustments
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Examples
Networking Company
• No ratings
• Structured conversations
• J Player v Non J Player
Clothing Retailer
• GPS
• Ongoing support
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Examples
Document and Marketing Solutions Company• Regular check-ins
• Focus on 3 elements• Expectations
• Feedback
• Growth & development
Software Company
• Until 2013, used a curve / forced ranking system
• In 2013, abandoned ratings
• Stress continual learning and growth
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Examples
Recreational Equipment Retailer• ‘anchor points’• Bi-annual calibration meetings
Financial Advisory Company• Moved away from cascading objectives, annual review,
360-degree feedback
• Performance snapshot based on 4 statements1. Given performance, I would award this person highest possible comp
and bonus.
2. Given performance, I always want this person on my team.
3. This person is at risk for low performance.
4. This person is ready for promotion.
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
What about rewards for good performance?
A rating by any other name?
• J vs non J player
• Anchor points • Leading performers
• Solid performers
• Developing performers
• Performance snapshot –
agreement with 4 statements
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
What about rewards for good performance?
World at Work Survey
• 80% use manager discretion
within budget
• 42% use calibration sessions
• 25% use ‘shadow’ ratings
• Many use multiple approaches
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Employment Decisions Related to Performance Ratings
Pay
• Merit increases
• Bonuses
Non-monetary rewards
Promotions
Disciplinary actions
Terminations
RIFsPeoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Pay
Pay for performance philosophy
When pay disparities exist,
performance often cited
as justification.
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Base Pay
Identify comparison groups
Identify factors that influence pay
Analyze pay
• Regressions
• Rank sum
• T-tests
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Regression by Job
• Suppose you conduct a regression analysis by job to examine disparities in base pay along gender lines
• You identify the following factors as important determinants of base pay:
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Regression by Job: Example
The City of Oaks AAP
• 410 employees: 250 females, 160 males
Regression Model (applied, in turn, to each job)
FTE Base Pay = A base amount,
+ An increment for each year in current job,
+ An increment for each other year with company,
+ An increment for each year of prior experience,
+ An increment based on the employee’s average performance rating over the past three years,
+ An increment based on the employee’s pay grade,
+ An increment based on the employee’s job title,
+ An increment if the employee is female
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
City of Oaks AAP: Regression by Job
Employees 30 R-Square 0.77
Females 15 F-Test 0.00
Parameter Estimate P-Value # Std Devs
Base Amount $35,983.96 <.0001 >3.89
Years in Current Job $2,099.19 <.0001 >3.89
Other Years With Company $536.47 0.0974 1.66
Prior Experience $21.96 0.8424 0.20
Grade B $0.00
Average Rating 1.00 – 1.99 -$3,353.99 0.5414 -0.61
Average Rating 2.00 – 2.99 -$4,709.19 0.2617 -1.12
Average Rating 3.00 – 3.99 $1,450.68 0.7202 0.36
Average Rating 4.00 – 4.99 $0.00
Female -$4,938.39 0.0032 -2.95
Male $0.00
Job IT Support
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
City of Oaks AAP: Regression by Job
Employees 305 R-Square 0.91
Females 181 F-Test 0.00
Parameter Estimate P-Value # Std Devs
Base Amount $56,160.92 <.0001 >3.89
Years in Current Job $597.41 0.0112 2.54
Other Years With Company $3.13 0.9680 0.04
Prior Experience $268.17 <.0001 >3.89
Grade A $23,583.20 <.0001 >3.89
Grade B $0.00
Average Rating 1.00 – 1.99 -$4,665.44 0.2145 -1.24
Average Rating 2.00 – 2.99 -$161.61 0.9671 -0.04
Average Rating 3.00 – 3.99 -$3,041.51 0.4186 -0.81
Average Rating 4.00 – 4.99 -$714.56 0.8859 -0.14
Average Rating 5.00 $0.00
Job Title AMM -$1,513.36 0.2870 -1.06
Job Title OCW $32,446.63 <.0001 >3.89
Job Title AEC $63,926.56 <.0001 >3.89
Job Title EAG $0.00
Job Title CRC $6,736.46 <.0001 >3.89
Job Title PMK $0.00
Female -$4,458.68 <.0001 -3.99
Male $0.00
Job
Customer
Support Rep
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
City of Oaks AAP: Regression by Job
Job
Project
Manager
Employees 75 R-Square 0.61
Females 54 F-Test 0.00
Parameter Estimate P-Value # Std Devs
Base Amount $31,094.59 <.0001 >3.89
Years in Current Job $716.03 <.0001 >3.89
Other Years With Company $693.97 <.0001 >3.89
Prior Experience $72.92 0.0402 2.05
Grade C $0.00
Average Rating 1.00 – 1.99 -$1,150.18 0.5969 -0.53
Average Rating 2.00 – 2.99 $1,147.69 0.4735 0.72
Average Rating 3.00 – 3.99 -$68.72 0.9656 -0.04
Average Rating 4.00 – 4.99 $0.00
Female -$1,425.69 0.0562 -1.91
Male $0.00
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Reconsidering the Pay-for-Performance Relationship
Current Base Pay = f(past starting pay rate, past merit pay increases,past promotion increases)
= f(prior experience,educational attainment,pay grade/band,geographic differentials,years of service,performance, etc.)
Merit Pay = f(performance)
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Merit Pay: Regression Example
Supervisors
• 99 employees: 57 females, 42 males
Regression Model
Merit Increase = A base amount,
+ An increment based on the employee’s most recent performance rating,
+ An increment based on the employee’s geographic pay scale,
+ An increment if the employee is female
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Regression on Merit Pay
Supervisors Employees 99 R-Square 0.83
Females 57 F-Test 0.00
Parameter Estimate P-Value # Std Devs
Base Amount $31.21 0.9083 0.12
Perf Rating: Exceeds $2,082.79 <.0001 5.59
Perf Rating: Meets All $1,515.78 <.0001 4.08
Perf Rating: Meets Most $841.20 <.0001 5.43
Perf Rating: Does Not Meet $0.00
Geo Pay Scale: A -$579.62 0.0053 -2.79
Geo Pay Scale: B -$381.22 <.0001 -4.69
Geo Pay Scale: C $0.00
Female -$1.55 0.9774 -0.03
Male $0.00
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Regression on Base Pay with Avg Perf Rating
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Merit as Proxy for Performance?
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Bonus as proxy
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Issues
Other factors influence merit (or bonus) pay
• Budget
• Department or location
• Supervisor discretion
• Unlikely a linear relationship with performance
Are there disparities in merit (or bonus) pay?
Increases for single year or across multiple years?
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Alternatives
Proxy
• % merit increase? One year? Average over multiple years?
• % bonus? One year? Average over multiple years?
• Other? Commissions? Awards?
‘Rating’ for pay purposes only
Analysis with no performance indicator supplemented with qualitative information
• Notes from performance discussions
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Possible Issues with Performance Discussions
Number of discussions by race and gender
Content of discussions by race and gender
Recorded notes by race and gender
• Number of positive vs negative comments
• Research findings
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Final Comments
Do performance ratings currently explain variance in base pay? Merit pay? Bonuses? other?
If you claim performance is related to pay, • Which kinds of pay?• What kind of relationship?• How will you quantify performance?
What factors influence pay? • Starting Pay?• Merit Increases?• Bonuses?• Other?
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential
Q & A
Questions?
Comments?
Peoplefluent Proprietary and Confidential