Getting Performance Without Performance Management
The "management" piece is traditional performance management typically assumes top-down control--that is, someone higher up the chain is supposed to ensure that their "direct reports" are delivering the expected performance. The hierarchical approach creates several issues that Bjarte and others have pointed out--e.g., extensive gaming, overreliance on the judgment/expertise of one person, disempowerment.
The idea behind this definition is to replace top-down "management" with peer-to-peer feedback and accountability. Peer-based mechanisms give individuals more autonomy in setting their goals and achieving them while adding some "healthy pressure" to ensure freedom doesn't come at the expense of performance. Some of the processes that could be suitable to peer-to-peer appreoaches include:
(a) Goal setting [Example: HCL's MyBlueprint account planning process]
(b) Resource allocation [Example: Rite-Solutions]
(c) Performance reviews [Example: WL Gore]
One way to explore the power of peer-to-peer models would be to:
1. Pick a specific process to "hack"--for instance, unit business planning.
2. Pick a specific department / unit where there is enough progressive thinking to support an experiment, and where volunteers would be happy to chip in.
3. Run a simple experiment that changes the process while keeping the traditional process working in parallel. In the business planning case, for instance, maintain the traditional process (where units submit their plans up the chain for approval), but give each unit the ability to provide feedback on the plans of their counterparts.
Hello Michele,
The only concern I see with a peer-to-peer accountability model is that it puts a lot of pressure on individuals to "fit-in" to their group of peers'. This is not a bad thing except if and when others on the group have a lower performance standard then an individual and decide that the high-performer doesn't "fit-in" to the group. I've actually seen where peers will isolate out a high-performer because that individual unintentionally causes the overall standard to be higher for the group. It would be beneficial if the definition included a way to ensure that peers of a group don't fall into a complacent/ low level performance standard by just rating each other. Thank You.
You need to register in order to submit a comment.