G19069 – Kinshuk Shekhar

No Rating Appraisal System G19074 – Nabeen Khandeep

G19075 – Naman Kohli
G19079 – Pranay Tripathy
G19089 – Shah Rushal Mayur
G19096 – Surbhi
 Theoretical Framework: “Agile PMS”
 Feedback should be given on ongoing basis
 Managers as well as Stakeholders/Customers can
share expectations
 Employees can give feedback to mangers
 Agile performance management lets employees
find out their capabilities.
 Together employees and manager can determine
a time frame in consensus for achieving their
goals
Supportive Leadership to increase 2-way communication
Incorporate regular 360° feedback
Keep goals flexible
 In case of any change in direction, employees
should be flexible to adapt to that change.
 The expected outcome should be clear.
 Goals for the organization and teams can be
designed and modified accordingly.
Collaborate more
Focus on consistent
development
 Managers should focus on consistently
developing their employees through various
means
 Developed employees can perform better and
increase productivity.
Crucial Agile Performance Management Practices
• Introduce team objectives in addition to individual
targets
01 Linking goals to • Set objectives as team, discuss results frequently ,
business priorities pivot as required
• Create transparency of performance and targets

• Clarify the goals that leaders play in development and

evaluation
02 Investing in manger’s • Focus on continuous feedback
coaching skills • Frequently collect input from multiple resources when
evaluating performance

• Differentiated individual contribution to team performance

Differentiating based on desired values, mind-sets, and behaviors
03 • Increase the emphasis on intrinsic motivation and
consequences nonmonetary rewards
Methodology
 Meet Our
Team

MICROSOFT DELOITTE ADOBE ACCENTURE

Microsoft axes its How Deloitte is Adobe abolishes In a Big Move, Accenture will
controversial employee Redesigning Performance Annual Performance get rid of Annual Performance
ranking system Management Review Reviews and Rankings

Source: theverge.com Source: HBR Source: Business Insider Source: washingtonpost.com

 Deloitte
Radically Simple Performance Measure

Criteria
Four questions are asked each belonging to single concept -
one about pay, one about teamwork, one about poor Transparency
performance, and one about promotion
Working on Snapshots to reveal the real-time truth of what
Rater leaders think
As team leaders are closest to the performance of ratees hence,
by virtue of their roles, they exercise subjective judgment Frequency
Performance Snapshots are raised at the end of each project.
Testing For longer-term projects, the frequency is quarterly
Validity testing focuses on the questions’ difficulty (as revealed
by mean responses) and the range of responses (as revealed
by standard deviations)
 Evaluation Parameters

01 02 03 04
Given what I know Given what I know This person is at This person is
of this person’s of this person’s risk for low ready for promotion
performance, and if performance, I performance today
it were my money, I would always want [identifies problems [measures potential
would award this him or her on my that might harm the on a yes-or-no basis]
person the highest team customer or the team
possible [measures ability to on a yes-or-no basis]
compensation work well with others
increase and bonus on the same five-
[measures overall point scale]
performance and
unique value to the
organization on a five-
point scale from
“strongly agree” to
“strongly disagree”]
Performance
Snapshots

What are the team leaders telling? How would this data help determine pay?

How would it help guide promotions? How would it help address low performance?
 Adobe
Performance Management Process- “Check-in“

Criteria

1. Managers set clear 2. Managers and

Transparency
expectations to help employees provide each
employees achieve other with ongoing and
business and personalRater constructive feedback
goals
Check-in
Testing

3. With Support of the

managers, employees
drive their own growth
and development
 How activities work under Check-in?
Processes After Check-in

Setting priorities Priorities discussed and adjusted with manager regularly.

Feedback process Ongoing process of feedback and dialogue with no formal written review or
documentation.

Compensation decisions No formal rating or ranking; manager determines salary and equity annually based on
performance.

Cadence of meetings Feedback happening quarterly, with ongoing feedback becoming the norm. Consistent
employee productivity based on ongoing discussions and feedback throughout the
year.

HR team role HR team equips employees and managers to have constructive conversations.

Training and resources A centralized Employee Resource Centre (ERC) provides help and answers whenever
needed.
 Positive Outcomes
70% to 80% of
Employees were able to
employees are
embrace the challenges
aligned on
Adobe faced as a
expectations,
business and every
receive regular
Check-in as a key feedback regarding Adobe’s employer employee believed that
differentiator to they have stake in
their development brand has Adobe’s overall success Focus on business
pursue and feel that their
managers are open become stronger story. Voluntary attrition
candidates to feedback as well
has reduced by 30%

Eight out of 10 new 75% of former Redeploy 80,000 manager hours

employees have Increased employees stating from administrative tasks to
discussed the that “Adobe is a Motivated more important business
Check-in process as alignment with great place to priorities
the key tenet of expectations work”. Boosted the employees
Adobe culture stock price as well
before the first day from $33 dollars to
of the job $303 dollars
Findings
Key Takeaways

Continuous Feedback is crucial

Introduce Rewards, Spot Awards

based on Performance

Bell Curve is allowed to form on its

own

Major focus on employee

development
Challenges
Pay differentiation becomes less
obvious, disappointing talent

Manager conversation quality declines

Unintended
Outcomes Time spent on informal conversations
decreases

Employee engagement drops

 References

 https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/corporate-hr-removing-performance-ratings-is-unlikely-to-improve-performance/
 https://www.business.com/articles/performance-management-companies-that-are-breaking-free/
 https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-management
 https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/performance-management-in-agile-organizations
 https://upraise.io/blog/traditional-vs-agile-performance-management/
 https://www.adobe.com/