systematicHR

There has been a bit too much debate on this topic not to bring it back in the new year. I think it really comes down to some of our fundamental philosophies on how we allow technology to impact our work and lives … how much control we actually give it.

More discussion here:

• My original post: Technology, Automation, and Talent Case Studies
• Regina: I’m not buying it…
• Success Factors: On robots and performance reviews
• Bilingual Job Blog: So that’s why my peformance reviews sound like they were written by a robot

Let’s reprint the first case study in it’s entirety. I’m concerned that we’re not watching the entire point and focusing on the word “robot” – we have focused on the tactical and not the strategic.

Case Study 1: The tie between Talent Management, Automation and Employee Engagement

That’s where technology comes in. As Kimberly-Clark’s global team developed the new process, it also shopped for software that could support it. A suite of HCM applications from SuccessFactors Inc. now helps speed the review process, in part by supplying a “robot” that provides thousands of sample phrases and assessments to help managers write reviews. Buthman says a review that once took him six or seven hours to prepare can now be done in a third of that time.

“Every employee needs a clear line of sight between what they do each day and how it relates to our global business plan,” Buthman says. “That’s how they understand the contribution they make. That’s part of what makes them feel engaged by their jobs.” And engagement, Buthman and others say, is critical to productivity, even if it can be hard to quantify. ”

The connection between employee engagement and productivity may be opaque, but the link between performance and pay is much clearer — or could be. One problem with performance reviews, many experts say, is that managers often lack visibility into an employee’s achievements throughout the year and instead tend to make decisions based largely on what the employee has (or hasn’t) done lately. Many HCM software companies cite this as a reason to buy a full suite of products that can address everything from hiring and performance management to compensation and career planning. As Buthman says, “The ability to differentiate among performers and match those differences to pay really completes the loop.”Liebs, Scott, September 15, 2005. “Building A Better Workforce,” CFO.com. Retrieved December 8, 2005 from http://www.cfo.com.

So I’m going to draw out 3 points from this text:

1. SuccessFactors Inc. now helps speed the review process, in part by supplying a “robot” that provides thousands of sample phrases and assessments to help managers write reviews.ibid
2. “Every employee needs a clear line of sight between what they do each day and how it relates to our global business plan,” Buthman says.ibid
3. One problem with performance reviews, many experts say, is that managers often lack visibility into an employee’s achievements throughout the year and instead tend to make decisions based largely on what the employee has (or hasn’t) done lately. ibid

Let’s start from the top:

1. The “robot” is problematic and creates either sympathetic thoughts a la AI, or horror themes a la Terminator. OK – maybe that’s not what anyone was thinking about, but the fact that a “robot” might be writing our performance reviews, directing our future compensation levels and promotional opportunities is troubling. The fact of the matter (Max, back me up here) is there is no robot. There is the ability for a manager to input critical facts about the employee, and an ability for the manager to select from suggested text that is generated by the software. A responsible manager will not simply apply this provided text, but will then go onto edit and personalize the content.

   We all know about managers (can we apply the 80/20 rule here?) that doesn’t bother writing reviews and just give a score. Very few actually take the time to thoughtfully provide insight into an employee’s performance. This is where automated content support is really helpful. Not only do the managers spend less time (that they were not going to spend anyway), but the employee now has some direction they will be provided for the next review period.

2. In implementing and building a TMS (talent management system) an organization has the incredible ability to build a “structure of strategy and vision” and apply it to various employee goals or MBO’s. Once this is done, the goals are applied to the employee level and directly automatically tied to the organizational objectives.
3. For all of us who have been through any HR courses on performance, we’ve all talked about bias. Whatever the form of the bias, TMS systems actively minimize bias by automating the scoring and categorization of employee activities throughout the year. This of course, is assuming the software is utilized and implemented as intended.

What strikes me about this entire conversation is not what software can or cannot do. The critical concept to grasp is how well we implement change management. If training is unsuccessful or adoption levels are low, then nothing you do will assist a poor performance process.

My post on change management will come on January 30 as a final part of my HR directives for 2006 series (which starts on Monday).

Related Reading:
Improving the quality of Communications – Part 2 of 2
The Manager’s Role in Performance