Peter Drucker, the master of management masters, once said that performance management is undoubtedly the most important aspect of enterprise management, but unfortunately, it is often one of the weakest areas in the management field. It is well known that performance management has many benefits, such as supporting the realization of corporate strategy, making work less confusing, identifying obstacles to performance through performance management, making teams less blind, and focusing on key points so that teams invest limited energy in the right things.
So why are there so many complaints about performance in enterprise practice? These enterprises often start with a bang and end with a whimper, and performance management becomes a mere formality, failing to meet expectations.
There is a story like this:
When the four masters and apprentices (from Journey to the West) were traveling, their plane crashed, and only three parachutes remained. Master Tang said, "Disciples, I will conduct an assessment. Each of you will answer one question. If you can't answer, you jump. The first question is: How many suns are there in the sky? Wukong, you answer." "One, Master," Wukong replied, and took a parachute and left. The second question was: How many moons are there in the sky? Bajie answered, "One, Master," and took a parachute and left. Bajie was delighted, thinking the questions were simple. Then Master Tang said, "The third question is: How many stars are there in the sky?" Bajie was stunned and jumped directly. As before, the four continued their journey, but the plane had another accident, and again only three parachutes remained. Master Tang said, "For fairness, I will ask three questions again. If you can't answer, you jump." The first question was answered by Wukong: "When was the People's Republic of China founded?" "1949, Master," Wukong replied and took a parachute. The second question was answered by Sha Seng: "How many people are there in China?" "1.3 billion, Master," Sha Seng answered and took a parachute. It was Bajie's turn. Master Tang said, "What are the names of these 1.3 billion people?" Bajie couldn't answer and jumped again. The four continued their journey, and the plane had another accident. Before Master Tang could speak, Bajie said, "Master, you don't need to test us. I'll jump directly this time." Before Master Tang could react, Bajie jumped. Master Tang shouted, "Amitabha, my disciple, this time we have four parachutes."
The above is a classic performance story. What does it teach us?
From the process, it seems like a fair assessment, but it is actually unfair. The corporate version of this story is that the performance indicators set by the company for each department appear fair on the surface, but in reality, some departments can easily complete them, while others cannot complete them even with great effort. Coupled with a lack of prior communication and effective coordination of compensation and benefits incentives, an atmosphere of "more work, more mistakes; less work, fewer mistakes" begins to spread, greatly reducing the incentive effect of performance.
The core of performance is communication and motivation, which is a professional subject. Many companies' HR and leaders do not understand the essence of performance thinking and blindly engage in performance PK. They do not realize that if the performance tool is used well, everyone is happy; if used poorly, it can greatly damage morale. The main reason is improper handling of performance concepts and issues in performance design and implementation. Before starting the design and implementation of a performance management system, it is necessary to recognize and handle these issues. Some say that performance is the first step in scientific management; without performance, there is no management. Although this is somewhat absolute, it makes sense. It should be noted that in the performance design and implementation process, even if 99% of the process is correct, the entire process can become ineffective due to that 1%. As in the story of Master Tang's questions, the process seems fair, but the challenge of the indicators is different. Of course, designing assessment indicators is itself an important part of performance management. Let me briefly mention three points to help beginners understand performance:
- About the concept of performance: Performance management is a management method in which managers and employees reach a consensus on goals and how to achieve them, and assist employees in successfully achieving their goals. Performance management is not simple task management; it emphasizes communication, coaching, and improvement of employee capabilities. Performance management not only emphasizes results orientation but also values the process of achieving goals, promoting employees to achieve work goals and personal harmonious development.
Performance management is first and foremost management (not the exclusive domain of the HR department); It covers all management functions: planning, organizing, coordinating, directing, and controlling; Performance management is a continuous communication process, which is guaranteed by agreements reached between employees and their direct supervisors; Performance management not only emphasizes work results but also values the process of achieving goals; Performance management is a cyclical process in which it not only emphasizes achieving performance results but also values the process through goals, coaching, evaluation, and feedback.
Regarding performance setting, common issues to overcome include: Indicator setting: conform to SMART principles, pay attention to the challenge of indicators, such as differences between sales and finance. The subjectivity of superior scoring: such as superiors being "good guys" or covering up for subordinates. Some departments not cooperating: such as strong departments in the enterprise. Difficulty in setting indicators for functional departments: such as R&D and HR departments. Difficulty in defining cross-departmental responsibilities: mutual buck-passing, such as quality issues. Poor management foundation: lack of historical data support, such as cost assessment and expense assessment. The above issues vary greatly depending on the company's business, stage, and maturity. For example, for quality issues, in a growth-stage enterprise, it may be necessary for the general manager to intervene strongly or establish a credible arbitration department, usually a technical department, which can convince with professional judgment. Of course, no matter how deep the boss's involvement, strong support at critical moments is essential.
About performance coaching: Performance is just a management tool in the human resource management system, not a panacea. It is like a sharp sword in the hands of the boss or HR manager. The original intention of using tools to motivate people is good, but what really matters is that they are effective. From an HR perspective, the focus should be on handling people's abilities and willingness. Corporate culture is a good tool to solve people's willingness. The core of culture is values; when values align, the team can be united. However, willingness alone is not enough. For new employees or those with poor abilities, superior coaching is particularly important. Recently, I read a book called "High Performance Coaching," which uses the GROW coaching model [Goal, Reality, Options, Will] as the coaching logic, cultivating employees' or clients' awareness (perception, observation ability), responsibility (the right to choose), and self-confidence through "asking effective questions." Because if a person is not aware that they should be responsible, they will not produce high performance. This book has some reference value for stimulating team potential.
Performance is a double-edged sword. The highest state is naturally "no sword in hand, no sword in heart." Some scholars say that the era of finding happiness through material incentives in the 21st century has ended, especially for the new generation of employees. Heart-to-heart communication, mutual respect, and a sense of achievement at work are what they care about and pursue more. Victor Vroom's expectancy theory M (Motivation) = Σ V (Valence) × E (Expectancy) tells us: when valence changes, our assessment dimensions and incentive methods should also keep pace with the times. Managers, especially the top leader, must always be vigilant about using yesterday's experience to solve today's problems and face future challenges. More importantly, while entrepreneurs pursue the scientific side of management, they should also grasp the artistic side of management.
Source: Beida Bono -END-