Dear Colleagues! This is Asrar Qureshi’s Blog Post #974 for Pharma Veterans. Pharma Veterans Blogs are published by Asrar Qureshi on its dedicated site https://pharmaveterans.com. Please email to aq.pharmaveterans@gmail.com for publishing your contributions here.
Performance management must be as old as the history of organized work can be traced. Even the individuals working alone would have measured their own performance, and then maybe their family members. The tribal chief would have measured the tribe’s performance collectively besides focusing on certain individuals. As the work became organized, one owner enslaved/ employed several people on farms and in factories. The owner not just kept an eye on his employees, he would hire few supervisors whose job was to ensure no one was sitting idle or shirking work. This later led to layers of management, and it became thicker and more powerful by the day. Management structures led to new issues and then consultants were engaged for correcting management issues.
The performance management system is an important aspect of any organization that aims to measure the employees’ performance against the vision, mission, developmental goals of the organization. Throughout history, organizations have experimented with various approaches to performance management, each reflecting the management philosophies and needs of the time. Performance appraisal is part of performance management.
Early Approaches
In the beginning, performance management systems were very basic and consisted mostly of supervisors evaluating employees’ work through simple assessments. Early approaches focused on productivity and linked it to certain personal traits such as punctuality, honesty, hard work. However, these were quite subjective and lacked clear links to actual work output.
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS was developed in the 1950s, BARS aimed to standardize evaluations by linking specific behaviors to different performance levels. While offering some objectivity, they could be cumbersome to implement.
Color coding of employees based on their performance was also used by several organizations, including big names like JCPenney.
Current Approaches
Management by Objectives (MBO) – was popularized by Peter Drucker in the 1950s, MBO emphasized setting clear, measurable goals collaboratively between managers and employees. It remained a tool of choice for several decades and is still used by many organizations. During my career, we were introduced to MBO in late 1970s by the multinational organization I was working for. We were trained on it, we set objectives, were evaluated for these at the end of the year and the performance result was linked to monetary reward, not as increment, but as portion of Workers’ Participation Fund.
During late 1900s, the focus was shifted more towards employee development. The human resource management viewed performance management as a continuous process that included development opportunities alongside performance evaluation.
360-degree feedback, which I wrote about in the last blogpost was introduced in the late 20th century and aimed to provide a more comprehensive picture by incorporating feedback from various sources beyond just the managers or supervisors.
Why the Changes?
The evolution of performance management reflects changing workplace dynamics and management philosophies.
Early approaches were designed along industrial revolution and focused on efficiency and control in manufacturing settings. Modern approaches emphasize employee development and adaptability in a knowledge-based economy. Technological revolution started in mid 20th century and is pushing along aggressively. Some people say that the development of AI is leading to technological revolution 3.0.
Frederick Winslow Taylor’s scientific management principles influenced early behavior-focused appraisals. Today, the focus is on employee engagement and creating a two-way feedback loop. The emphasis is on creating an environment where employee engagement is the key to ensuring good performance.
Early approaches often aimed for uniformity across organizations. Today, there’s a growing recognition of the need for flexible and adaptable performance management systems catering to specific roles and company cultures. I remember when we first set up objectives for MBO, we were told that everyone must keep these three objectives as universal objectives (whatever those were at that time) and add two or three more. Today, individuality is emphasized.
KPIs and OKRs are the most current and are based on individual performance. As the workplace continues to evolve, we can expect further innovation in how organizations measure, evaluate, and develop their employees’ performance.
KPIs and OKRs – An Interesting Comparison
KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) and OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) are both valuable tools used in performance management, but they serve different purposes and occupy different stages within the process.
KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)
KPIs measure past and current performance. They track specific metrics that reflect how well an organization, team, or individual is achieving its goals.
KPIs are typically established at the beginning of a performance cycle (e.g., quarter, year) and monitored throughout the period. They provide a real-time snapshot of progress towards achieving strategic objectives. For example, sales revenue generated, customer satisfaction score, website traffic, project completion rate, etc.
OKRs (Objectives and Key Results)
OKRs set aspirational goals for the future. They define what an organization, team, or individual wants to achieve and the measurable results that indicate progress towards those goals. OKRs are typically set at the beginning of a performance cycle and reviewed periodically (e.g., quarterly) to assess progress and make adjustments as needed. They provide a framework for ambitious yet achievable goals. For example, objective: Launch a new product line. Key Result 1: Achieve 10,000 pre-orders within 3 months. Key Result 2: Secure positive reviews from 80% of initial product testers.
While distinct, KPIs and OKRs can be complementary within performance management.
KPIs inform OKR setting – Past performance data from KPIs can be used to establish realistic and achievable goals within OKRs.
OKRs guide KPI selection – The objectives set in OKRs can help determine which KPIs are most relevant to monitor progress and success.
OKRs provide context for KPIs – When evaluating KPIs, the context of the broader objectives established in OKRs helps assess their true significance.
In essence, KPIs are the compass, providing direction and real-time feedback on the journey. And OKRs are the destination, setting ambitious goals and charting the course.
By using both KPIs and OKRs effectively, organizations can create a performance management system that fosters accountability, drives results, and promotes continuous improvement.
Sum Up
Performance Management has always been around and shall always. The systems have evolved with greater knowledge and change in circumstances. The way the things are going, more changes may come more frequently. We should embrace changes with open mind and find the most suitable system of our organizations.
Concluded.
Disclaimers: Pictures in these blogs are taken from free resources at Pexels, Pixabay, Unsplash, and Google. Credit is given where available. If a copyright claim is lodged, we shall remove the picture with appropriate regrets.
For most blogs, I research from several sources which are open to public. Their links are mentioned under references. There is no intention to infringe upon anyone’s copyrights. If, however, it happens unintentionally, I offer my sincere regrets.
Reference:
