A couple of months ago I did my World at Work certification in Performance Management. Guess what? Suggested HR involvement is minimal. Undoubtedly, its role is crucial in:
- designing the process
- setting the framework (communicating the policies, deadlines, key principles, educating employees, line managers and the senior executives)
- ensuring compliance and managing complaints
- industry benchmarking
- tying performance management to remuneration and other people related fields (Talent Management, i.e. how your rankings impact your promotions or development opportunities, such as rotations, leadership development, international options, etc.; Learning and Development, i.e. the learning interventions required to close the identified developmental gaps as an outcome of your performance discussions)
- communicating the outcomes of each perofrmance management cycle to the relevant stakeholder groups including the employees (maintaining confidentiality, but still being able to provide the big picture, so that the employees can feel the tangible impact of the process on their everyday worklife)
- adjusting and adapting the process in case faults are identified
- making sure the new employees are appropriately onboarded with regards to the performance management process
Those who suggest firing "non-key" people (instead of managing their performance )underestimate three aspects:
- morale within the company (how do you think the "key" people feel about their colleagues losing their jobs? also, i would not like to have my assistants changing every six months)
- legislation - in many countries you will be taken to court if you are laying off and hiring people at the same time
- unions (imagine your 3-people logistics department joins the Transport Barganing Council, and then in case you make a decision to lay them off, you will have to defend that decision on a country level, faced with the industry, threatening stalling your logistics operations whatsoever)
No comments:
Post a Comment