New Trends in Global Business-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Case Study of Deloitte Firm. Answer: Brief Summary of the core article The title of the research title selected for the study is Reinventing performance Management (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). At Deloitte, they realized that the performance management is used for evaluating the work of employees where the company train, promote and pay the employees based on their experiences, expertise, job role and job position. The company decided to implement new system that will have no cascading objectives. In order to plan for a new system, Deloitte drew on different pieces of evidence that is simply count hours as well as carefully controlled study of own business and a review of research in the science of ratings. The case study is related to the audit firm named as Deloitte and published on 22nd February 2017 in Harvard Business Review (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). Deloitte is one of the audit firms that provide professional services to their clients. The audit firm is the largest professional service network in and across the world in terms of revenues as well as number of present professionals. In the year 2013- 2014, Deloitte generated revenue of $34.2 billion USD. It is therefore decided by Deloitte to take on reinventing performance management for smooth functioning of business enterprise (Van Dooren, Bouckaert and Halligan 2015). Both Marcus Buckingham and Ashley Goodall had properly explained the process as well as findings of the large-scale audit firm named as Deloitte (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). The information was presented in form of performance management survey and published on Harvard Business Review. It is now important to find out how Deloitte changed the approach to performance management as well as review the practical action items where the information are taken from case study of Deloitte for reinventing own performance management. Performance appraisals are perhaps the most reviled standard practice in all of management (Spira and Page 2013). Research Questions What made Deloitte think that their current approach is not working well? Why it is necessary for Deloitte to reinvent performance management in their business operations? Differentiate between old versus new approach to performance management? What are the suggestions to reinvent performance management? Literature Review Inefficiency of current approach (360-degree feedback) by Deloitte As rightly put forward by Cappelli and Tavis (2016), Deloitte recognizes that their current approach to performance management (360-degree feedback) was wasting a shocking 2 million hours per year. In addition, using the old management tool in practice was not able to engage employees and level of performance of employees were dropping. In order to solve the problem, Deloitte set out ways for building something that is more nimble, real-time as well as individualized. It is important to take a look at why Deloitte need to change before getting into the new approach (Pulakos et al. 2015). After getting the results, it is noted that most of them come as feedback from their own high performing team members where they had the chance to make use of their strengths on everyday basis (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). To solve this, Deloitte had come up with clear goal where it is clearly mentioned that the company should spend more time helping people to enhance the strengths. After the company recognize the strength in performance of high performers, it is now important to evaluate as far as possible. The best answer will come from immediate team leader but it is important to know how the employees provided without idiosyncratic effect can (Van Dooren, Bouckaert and Halligan 2015). Reinvent performance management 30% of performance reviews end up decreasing employee performance. 58% of Executives are of the opinion that their current program does not result in performance or engagement (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). 70% of companies are now reconsidering their performance strategy 2 to 3 employees with highest performance scores are not actually comes under highest performers 6% of companies are of the opinion that performance reviews are worth their time (Van Dooren, Bouckaert and Halligan 2015) 2% of HR Executives are of the opinion that yearly evaluations are useful 80% of workers are dissatisfied with their performance reviews (Buckingham and Goodall 2015) According Gerrish (2016), before deciding upon the condition on how to deal with biased assessments, it is important to look at the insight of Deloitte. The company had used the Gallup 1.4 million employee studies to look at the similarities between high as well as low performing teams. To that, the high performing team feels that they are doing their best. Deloitte went from there and identified 60 high performing teams based on certain criteria. To that, they conducted six-item survey for defining the similarities between the high performing teams (Orlando and Bank 2016). The goal was set once a year as well as reviewed at the same time. The problem with the approach is that the annual goals are too much batched for a real time world as well as lot of time goes waste on performance ratings (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). In addition, the management can think of spending time to talk with people about their performance and careers. The next discovery was that skills of someone is subjective and reveals more about the rater than the ratee and this is known as idiosyncratic rater effect. It was then argued that best feedback can only come from immediate team leader and problem is how deal with idiosyncratic rater effects (Cardy and Munjal 2016). Figure: Performance problems at Deloitte (Source: Levy et al. 2017) It is difficult to find the business that is not concerned with the performance of their employees (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). Despite the critical nature of employee performance, it is noted that performance review has come under intense scrutiny in current year where business enterprise are questioning the need for formal performance evaluation process. In addition, the root cause of uncertainty is the fact where everyone involved seems to dread in action and management is not convinced that the process drives future performance improvements. In the present study, the most interesting article named as Reinventing performance management as published in the Harvard Business Review (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). This article mainly begins with the compelling critique of the current batch style review process where the company asks manager for evaluating their performance of employees based in slate of performance criteria (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). It is noted that the most concerned finding was present where more than 60% of the variance in ratings between managers is the result of individual rater peculiarities of perception. It is therefore difficult to compare the ratings of one rater to those of others. It is important to point out that the main desire is to identify, investing and promoting the best activities. Rather than advocating for the elimination of performance, it is important to lay out an alternative way to think about performance management that can fit nicely in the process (Kinley and Kinley 2016). Suggestions to reinvent performance management It is important to consider the factor from the case study on Deloitte. The factor is frequency where the company points out that the optimal performance of these new performance reviews should be on weekly basis (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). It is even suggested that the best way to ensure frequency is to have regular check-ins about the near time work that had been initiated by the team members. The performance of Deloitte is also getting impact from a consumer technology platform that had been designed to be simple and quick. To that, people tend to be interested in their own insights as well as achievements where they believe that employing these methods will engage an employee around their own performance in a way that had not been performed earlier (Bititci, Cocca and Ates 2016). Theme 1: Crisis of credibility It is time to blow up Human resources and build something new HR faces a crisis of credibility in the boardroom HR is the favorite corporate punching bag Theme 2: Performance review leads to: 40%- Higher Employee Engagement 25%- Lower Turnover 18%- Growth in customer loyalty 15%- Boost to Productivity Theme 3: Motivating Employees 42% of companies want feedback every week Stack ranking Providing frequent feedback Annual review cycles Skill enhancement Encouraging ownership thinking Theme 4: Modern pay for performance Paying for results Creative about both performance and pay (Mihalcea 2017) Performance management aligns to business goals as well as cycles Companies link performance with pay 50.1% Based on increased performance 61.8% Provide individual incentives 25.7% Provide team incentives Linking pay to performance Performance-based rewards and recognition (Dimon 2013) Culture and perks that reward high performers (Van Dooren, Bouckaert and Halligan 2015) Higher increases for top performers Results based incentive plan (Buckingham and Goodall 2015) Sources of secondary data A source of secondary data for the field of research is the journal, Reinventing Performance Management. This article is published in Harvard Business Review (Buckingham and Goodall 2015). The resources are available as secondary data that will be sued for analyzing what research has been done that concerns the mentioned topic and research gaps that is yet to be covered. Pro-Quest databases provides a single source for scholarly journals, newspapers, reports as well as working papers and datasets that is present with millions of pages of digitalized historical primary sources (Ates et al. 2013). There are two types of data that need to be evaluated by the researcher such as inclusive data and exclusive data. Exclusive data are those data where sources are taken before 2012. Inclusive data are those data where sources are taken after 2012. In this study, the main source is taken from Harvard Business Review that was published in the year 2017 and title is Reinventing Performance Manag ement- A case study of Deloitte. Conclusion At the end of the study, it is concluded that Deloitte is an audit firm where they engages in providing professional services to their clients. Here, the company is of the opinion that traditional approach (360-degree reviews) was inefficient as well as do not give a transparent view of the current working situation and it is now important to reinvent the performance management process. In addition, the best way to do this is by asking the team leaders for assessing their team members through statements that mainly describes what they would do and what they think. In addition, employee performance snapshots should be regular that is preferred on weekly basis and the technology designed should be simple, quick and engaging at the same time. Reference List Ates, A., Garengo, P., Cocca, P. and Bititci, U., 2013. The development of SME managerial practice for effective performance management.Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development,20(1), pp.28-54. Bititci, U., Cocca, P. and Ates, A., 2016. Impact of visual performance management systems on the performance management practices of organisations.International Journal of Production Research,54(6), pp.1571-1593. Buckingham, M. and Goodall, A., 2015. Reinventing performance management.Harvard Business Review,93(4), pp.40-50. Cappelli, P. and Tavis, A., 2016. The performance management revolution.Harvard Business Review,94(10), pp.58-67. Cardy, R.L. and Munjal, D., 2016. Beyond Performance Ratings: The Long Road to Effective Performance Management.Industrial and Organizational Psychology,9(2), pp.322-328. Dimon, R., 2013.Enterprise Performance Management Done Right: an operating system for your organization. John Wiley Sons. Gerrish, E., 2016. The Impact of Performance Management on Performance in Public Organizations: A Meta?Analysis.Public administration review,76(1), pp.48-66. Kinley, N. and Kinley, N., 2016. The end of performance management: sorting the facts from the hype.Strategic HR Review,15(2), pp.90-94. Levy, P.E., Tseng, S.T., Rosen, C.C. and Lueke, S.B., 2017. Performance Management: A Marriage between Practice and ScienceJust Say I do. InResearch in Personnel and Human Resources Management(pp. 155-213). Emerald Publishing Limited. Mihalcea, A. D. 2017. Employer Branding and Talent Management in the Digital Age.Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy,5(2), 289-306. Orlando, J. and Bank, E., 2016. Case Study: A New Approach to Performance Management at Deloitte.People and Strategy,39(2), p.42. Pulakos, E.D., Hanson, R.M., Arad, S. and Moye, N., 2015. Performance management can be fixed: An on-the-job experiential learning approach for complex behavior change.Industrial and Organizational Psychology,8(1), pp.51-76. Spira, L.F. and Page, M., 2013. Risk management: The reinvention of internal control and the changing role of internal audit.Accounting, Auditing Accountability Journal,16(4), pp.640-661. Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J., 2015.Performance management in the public sector. Routledge.