3 Lessons That Will Boost Your Performance Management System

Whether you are using a free Excel spreadsheet or a multi-million dollar HRIS to manage your performance process, you are probably running into the same three problems: it is not a positive user experience, it is not promoting a positive interaction between a manager and an individual, and it is not positively changing or improving performance.

All three problems tend to originate in the design process, which tends to be HR- and IT-centric rather than user-centric. HR needs to 'get something in place'. IT needs the solution to fit within their application and infrastructure requirements. Neither starts with what managers and individuals actually need.

The three common problems

The three problems are universal because they share a common root cause: performance management processes are designed for the organisation, not for the people who have to use them.

HR needs data. IT needs compliance. Managers need to have difficult conversations. Employees need honest feedback. These are not the same needs - and a process designed for the first two will fail the second two every time.

Adopting a user-centric design process

We interact with technology all the time. We have become aware of what a good user experience looks like. If we try a new application and it is confusing, difficult to navigate, or not useful, we delete it immediately.

The single biggest hurdle when designing performance management software is to overcome the expert trap. Experts understand the context, the connections, the background, and the theories within their field of expertise. Much of what they know is implicit. Experts want as much functionality as possible because they know how it can be used. But most users want, and only use, the basic functionality of any application.

Lesson 1: Design for simplicity

A study of 148,500 employees using Microsoft Office found that 91% of users either never used Word or would be considered light users. The majority of people want, and only use, the basic functionality of any application. The more it does, the more difficult it is to use.

There is also an in-built conflict of interests in performance management. As a manager, the thing that costs you the most is to tell someone how good they are - because then they will want a raise, or realise their value and leave. As an individual, the thing you need to hear the most is where you can improve - but if you accept that feedback, you might be penalised.

The challenge in designing a performance process is to create a shared and common interest. We discuss common interests, but we argue about different interests.

Lesson 2: Design for interaction

In a recent study, only 2 out of 10 managers felt comfortable having performance conversations. But 92% of employees agreed that corrective feedback, if delivered correctly, is effective at improving performance.

The performance process should be about more than recording goals and collecting ratings. It should create a common purpose - how do we achieve your goals together? - and support that conversation. Technology should guide the conversation, not replace it.

Lesson 3: Design for impact

You can only ever measure what has happened, so all measures are backward-looking. While that is useful for measuring performance, it is useless for managing performance. A performance process should achieve four things: communicate goals and expectations, motivate and reward the achievement of those goals, predict the likelihood of a successful outcome, and diagnose problems along the way.

The ability to predict a successful outcome and diagnose a problem if it occurs are two forward-looking factors. They can change what will happen. Imagine if your performance system could tell a manager that an individual is unlikely to deliver their work on time - and what they could do about it. That is information that changes the future.