1 / 48

Human Resource Strategic Initiative Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Human Resource Strategic Initiative Summary of Findings and Recommendations. Design Team Report Performance Management. June 30, 2006. Presentation Contents. Project Team Members Goals and Challenges Design Team Process Stakeholder Analysis Competency Analysis System Elements Analysis

bevis
Download Presentation

Human Resource Strategic Initiative Summary of Findings and Recommendations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Human Resource Strategic Initiative Summary of Findings and Recommendations Design Team Report Performance Management June 30, 2006

  2. Presentation Contents • Project Team Members • Goals and Challenges • Design Team Process • Stakeholder Analysis • Competency Analysis • System Elements Analysis • Assumptions & Key Process Recommendations • Return on Investment • Recommendations for Implementation ©2006 GMS

  3. Project Team ©2006 GMS

  4. Subject Matter Experts ©2006 GMS

  5. Desired Future State A user-friendly, competency-based performance management system that develops employees, rewards excellence, and is aligned with the vision and goals of the State and its entities. ©2006 GMS

  6. Desired Outcome A Performance Management Process that: • Links State, department, program, team, and individual goals. • Provides feedback that allows employees to perform well and identifies developmental opportunities for improvement or future roles. • Supports other HR initiatives. • Is embraced and supported by all levels of the organization, especially upper management. ©2006 GMS

  7. Key Linkages with Other Initiatives • Absence Management • Leadership Development • PeopleSoft • Succession Planning • Workforce Planning • Customer Service ©2006 GMS

  8. Potential Challenges • Buy-in from State workforce • Changing management practices and behaviors • Resources for process automation • Accessibility to computers and Internet for users • Funding and allocation of rewards • Accountability that ensures active performance management by managers and leaders ©2006 GMS

  9. Design Team Process Outline • Research best practices • Obtain stakeholder feedback • Determine statewide competencies • Propose performance management process design based on research and feedback from stakeholders ©2006 GMS

  10. Stakeholder Sub-Team Performance Management ©2006 GMS

  11. Stakeholder Sub-Team Goal Ensure feedback from key stakeholders to consider when formulating recommendations. • Strategies: • One-on-one executive interviews • Surveys of key stakeholder groups ©2006 GMS

  12. Executive Interviews ©2006 GMS

  13. Executive Interviews, continued ©2006 GMS

  14. Executive Interviews, continued ©2006 GMS

  15. Executive Interview Results/Themes Current Process • The current process is too time-consuming and complicated • The current system does not reward top performers • Managers don't see employee development as a part of their jobs • Executives feel they themselves should do a better job of performance management Desired Process • The process should be simplified • Performance management must be clearly tied to agency goals • There is a need for more flexibility in performance management depending on the particular job (e.g. creative, routine, etc.) • Competencies in general and statewide competencies in particular should be included • Agencies should have more flexibility to decide what to do with their salary increase funds • The process should allow for 360's, self-assessments, and more collaboration ©2006 GMS

  16. Groups Surveyed • Human Resources community - entire membership of the State Council for Personnel Administration • Supervisors – small randomly sampled group • Employees – small randomly sampled group ©2006 GMS

  17. Survey Results Surprisesfrom Surveys • Employees didn’t mention pay as much as HR/Supervisors did • More frequent feedback sessions desired • Need for fairness mentioned often General Observations – Employee Survey • More communication in general • More frequent feedback sessions desired • Want recognition for additional duties General Observations – Supervisor Survey • Evaluations should be results based • Favor different forms for different levels • Want help with performance management (including training) ©2006 GMS

  18. Survey Results General Observations – HR Specialist Survey • Differential pay desired • Favored competencies • Employee self-evaluation and more involvement in general desired • Managers must be held responsible • Agency goals tied to individual goals Performance management is a process, not an event. ©2006 GMS

  19. Competency Sub-Team Performance Management ©2006 GMS

  20. Competency Sub-Team Goals • Choose a competency dictionary that can be used for all HR initiatives • Identify core (Statewide) competencies that would be required of all employees • Identify leadership competencies that would be required of all supervisors and leaders • Develop a set of proposed recommendations for the implementation team Strategy: Include representatives from other initiatives to ensure that the chosen dictionary meets the needs of primary users. ©2006 GMS

  21. Competency Considerations • Needs to be in line with the strategic objectives and goals of the State of Georgia • Any HR function (e.g., performance management, succession planning, leadership, selection, recruitment) should be able to work from the same common resource • Broad enough to be usable across job types, job levels, and organizational entities • Any manager should be able to use the information easily and effectively • Needs to be included as part of, and consistent with, any changes to the compensation plan ©2006 GMS

  22. Competency Dictionary /Framework • Decision: revise the current State competency dictionary, GCOMPS. Changes include: • Redesign the format and layout • Include a definition and overview on competencies, guidelines and instructions • Each competency would have one rather than two rating scales ©2006 GMS

  23. Proposed Enterprise-Wide Competencies ©2006 GMS

  24. Total Systems Elements Sub-Team Performance Management ©2006 GMS

  25. Performance ManagementInter-Process Linkages Performance Execution Do the job, achieve the goals, and get the results Performance Planning Describe “fully successful” performance (not “superior”) performance • Agree on goals • Link to state and agency goals • Agree on responsibilities , tasks & projects • Performance log • Updated goals • Mid-year or quarterly review Performance Management Model Performance Assessment Judge strengths & weaknesses Performance Review Go over assessment with employee • Results • Competencies • Key tasks or activities • Major achievements • Development plan • Career development • Gain understanding • Don’t have to agree ©2006 GMS

  26. Intent – Performance Management The purpose of performance management is to coach and develop employees to align individual performance with the vision and goals of the State and its entities. ©2006 GMS

  27. Assumptions & Key Process Recommendations ©2006 GMS

  28. Assumptions & Key Process Recommendations ©2006 GMS

  29. Assumptions & Key Process Recommendations ©2006 GMS

  30. Assumptions & Key Process Recommendations ©2006 GMS

  31. Assumptions & Key Process Recommendations ©2006 GMS

  32. Assumptions & Key Process Recommendations ©2006 GMS

  33. Assumptions & Key Process Recommendations ©2006 GMS

  34. Assumptions & Key Process Recommendations ©2006 GMS

  35. Assumptions & Key Process Recommendations ©2006 GMS

  36. Assumptions & Process Recommendations ©2006 GMS

  37. Enabling Technologies 42 ©2006 GMS

  38. Business Requirements (Enabling Technologies): • Limitations of current enabling technologies • Limited automation; paper-based • Difficult to compile data • Limited accessibility to reviews • Benefits of proposed technology • Automated • User-friendly • Easy to track usage • Easy to compile data, including rating distribution, historical data, usage, demographics, etc. • Easily accessible by multiple users ©2006 GMS

  39. Proposed Factors to Comprise Overall Performance Rating Legend: O = Optional X = Required * Optional elements for use at agency discretion (Self-Evaluation, 360-degree feedback, etc.) are not included in this chart. ** Executive level excludes Agency Heads. *** At this level, the final evaluation may be based on either Job Responsibilities and Tasks or Results and Accomplishments. ©2006 GMS

  40. Proposed Rating Scale – Overall Performance Ratings ©2006 GMS

  41. Recommendations Regarding Overall Ratings • Performance-based increase will not be awarded for a rating of Unsatisfactory • Employees may not be rated as Developmental or Unsatisfactory in two concurrent years (should consider termination). ©2006 GMS

  42. Other Process Recommendations • Increase amounts: Provide agencies with a budget for performance-based increases along with the flexibility and authority to grant variable increases within certain parameters. • Frequency: Conduct formal, documented reviews twice per year (during cycle and end of cycle). ©2006 GMS

  43. Other Process Recommendations, continued • Timing: Move from common review date to staggered based on anniversary date. • Training: Separate training regarding the process from supervisory and leadership skills training. Require that all managers and employees be trained regarding the process. Identify supplemental training necessary for supervisors on a case-by-case basis. ©2006 GMS

  44. Return on Investment • Estimating ROI is difficult, although both research and practical experience indicate the recognition and reward of employee performance can make a real difference in an organization’s ability to obtain its business objectives. • When used appropriately, the performance management process can be a key mechanism for ensuring alignment of the workforce with the goals and objectives of the organization. ©2006 GMS

  45. Return on Investment, continued • Determining the true ROI for the Performance Management Initiative will involve examining both qualitative and quantitative metrics. A benefit of effective performance management is its impact on the following factors related to employee and organizational productivity: • Reduction in turnover rate (statewide approximately 17% in FY06) • Increase in employee engagement and reduction of “presenteeism” • Increase in effective communication and employee job satisfaction • Effective promotions and succession planning • Focusing employee performance on value added output and action key to achieving business objectives ©2006 GMS

  46. Summary - Return on Investment Costs: Technology, Process Design, Training Assumptions: • $35,000 average salary • 40% of productivity is attributable to performance management • 75,000 affected employees • 60% improvement in effectiveness with improved system Estimated ROI: • $8,402 per employee annually ©2006 GMS

  47. Recommendations for Implementation • Obtain extensive stakeholder feedback to evaluate and validate Design Team proposals and recommendations. • Obtain and implement technology to support improved process. • Closely align process implementation with other initiatives, particularly compensation plan, succession planning and leadership development. • Continue analysis of return on investment. ©2006 GMS

  48. ©2006 GMS

More Related