Case Study 1-2 Performance Management At Network Solution

Case Study 1 2performance Management At Network Solution

Case Study 1 2performance Management At Network Solution

Case Study 1-2CASE STUDY 1-2 Performance Management at Network Solutions, Inc. Network Solutions, Inc., is a worldwide leader in hardware, software, and services essential to computer networking. Until recently, Network Solutions, Inc., used more than 50 different systems to measure performance within the company, many employees did not receive a review, fewer than 5% of all employees received the lowest category of rating, and there was no recognition program in place to reward high achievers. Overall, it was recognized that performance problems were not being addressed, and tough pressure from competitors was increasing the costs of managing human performance ineffectively. In addition, quality initiatives were driving change in several areas of the business, and Network Solutions decided that these initiatives should also apply to “people quality.” Finally, Network Solutions wanted to improve its ability to meet its organizational goals and realized that one way of doing this would be to ensure that they were linked to each employee’s goals.

Given this situation, in 2001, Network Solutions’ CEO announced that he wanted to implement a forced distribution performance management system in which a set percentage of employees were classified in each of several categories (e.g., a rating of 1 to the top 20% of performers; a rating of 2 to the middle 70% of performers; and a rating of 3 to the bottom 10% of performers). A global cross-divisional HR team was put in place to design and implement the new system. The first task for the design team was to build a business case of the new system by showing that if organizational strategy was carried down to team contributions and team contributions were translated into individual goals, then business goals would be met.

Initially the program was rolled out as a year-round people management system that would raise the bar on performance management at Network Solutions by aligning individual performance objectives with organizational goals by focusing on the development of all employees. The desired outcomes of the new system included raising the performance level of all employees, identifying and retaining top talent, and identifying low performers and improving their performance. Network Solutions also wanted the performance expectations for all employees to be clear. Before implementing the program, the design team received the support of senior leadership by communicating that the performance management system was the future of Network Solutions and by encouraging all senior leaders to ensure that those reporting directly to them understood the process and accepted it.

In addition, they encouraged senior leaders to use the system with all of their direct subordinates and to demand and utilize output from the new system. Next, the design team encouraged the senior leaders to stop the development and use of any other performance management system and explained the need for standardization of performance management across all divisions. Finally, the team asked senior leaders to promote the new program by involving employees in training of talent management and by assessing any needs in their divisions that would not be addressed by the new system. The Network Solutions global performance management cycle consisted of the following process: 1. Goal cascading and team building 2. Performance planning 3. Development planning 4. Ongoing discussions and updates between managers and employees 5. Annual performance summary. Training resources were made available on Network Solutions’ intranet for managers and individual contributors, including access to all necessary forms. In addition to the training available on the intranet, 1- to 2-hour conference calls took place before each phase of the program was begun.

Today, part of the training associated with the performance management system revolves around the idea that the development planning phase of the system is the joint year-round responsibility of managers and employees. Managers are responsible for scheduling meetings, guiding employees on preparing for meetings, and finalizing all development plans. Individual contributors are responsible for documenting the developmental plans. Both managers and employees are responsible for preparing for the meeting, filling out the development planning preparation forms, and attending the meeting. With forced distribution systems, there is a set number of employees that have to fall into set rating classifications.

As noted, in the Network Solutions system, employees are given a rating of 1, 2, or 3. Individual ratings are determined by the execution of annual objectives and job requirements as well as by a comparison rating of others at a similar level at Network Solutions. Employees receiving a 3, the lowest rating, have a specified time period to improve their performance. If their performance does improve, then they are released from the plan, but they are not eligible for stock options or salary increases. If performance does not improve, they can take a severance package and leave the company or they can start on a performance improvement plan, which has more rigorous expectations and timelines than did the original action plan.

If performance does not improve after the second period, they are terminated without a severance package. Individuals with a rating of 2 receive average to high salary increases, stock options, and bonuses. Individuals receiving the highest rating of 1 receive the highest salary increases, stock options, and bonuses. These individuals are also treated as “high potential” employees and given extra development opportunities by their managers. The company also makes significant efforts to retain all individuals who receive a rating of 1.

Looking to the future, Network Solutions plans to continue reinforcing the needed cultural change to support forced distribution ratings. HR Centers of Expertise of Network Solutions continue to educate employees about the system to ensure that they understand that Network Solutions still rewards good performance; they are just measuring it in a different way than in the past. There is also a plan to monitor for and correct any unproductive practices and implement correcting policies and practices. To do this, Network Solutions plans on continued checks with all stakeholders to ensure that the performance management system is serving its intended purpose. Consider Network Solutions’ performance management system in light of what we discussed as an ideal system.

Then answer the following questions: 1. Overall, what is the overlap between Network Solutions’ system and an ideal system? 2. What are the features of the system implemented at Network Solutions that correspond to the features described in the chapter as ideal characteristics? Which of the ideal characteristics are missing? For which of the ideal characteristics do we need additional information to evaluate whether they are part of the system at Network Solutions? 3. Based on the description of the system at Network Solutions, what do you anticipate will be some advantages and positive outcomes resulting from the implementation of the system? 4. Based on the description of the system at Network Solutions, what do you anticipate will be some disadvantages and negative outcomes resulting from the implementation of the system?

Reference, Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Requirements: In one page: Identifying or predicting positive and negative outcomes at Network Solutions, Inc. may be aided by the information on page 22 of the text where the author identifies the characteristics of an ideal performance management system (PMS). For this discussion, read Case Study 1-2: Performance Management at Network Solutions, Inc. on pages 31-32 in your textbook.

What do you think will be some of the advantages or positive outcomes resulting from the implementation of the system? What do you anticipate will be some of the disadvantages or negative outcomes? Why?

Information from the book need to be addressed in the paper: Acceptability and fairness. A good system is acceptable and is perceived as fair by all participants. Perceptions of fairness are subjective and the only way to know if a system is seen as fair is to ask the participants about the system. Such perceptions include four distinct components. First, we can ask about distributive justice, which includes perceptions of the performance evaluation received relative to the work performed, and perceptions of the rewards received relative to the evaluation received, particularly when the system is implemented across countries. For exam- ple, differences in perceptions may be found in comparing employees from more individualistic (e.g., United States) to more collectivistic (e.g., Korea) cultures. If a discrepancy is perceived between work and evaluation or between evaluation and rewards, then the system is likely to be seen as unfair. Second, we can ask about procedural justice, which includes perceptions of the procedures used to determine the ratings as well as the procedures used to link ratings with rewards. Third, we can assess perceptions regarding interpersonal justice, which refers to the quality of the design and implementation of the performance management system. For ex- ample, what are employees’ perceptions regarding how they are treated by their supervisors during the performance review meeting? Do they feel that supervisors are empathic and helpful? Finally, informational justice refers to fairness perceptions about performance expectations and goals, feedback received, and the information given to justify administrative decisions. For example, are explanations perceived to be honest, sincere, and logical? Because a good system is inherently discriminatory, some employees will receive ratings that are lower than those received by other employees. However, we should strive to develop systems that are regarded as fair from the distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational perspectives because each type of justice perception leads to different outcomes. For example, a perception that the system is not fair from a distributive point of view is likely to lead to a poor relationship between employee and supervisor and lowered satisfaction of the employee with the supervisor. On the other hand, a perception that the system is unfair from a procedural point of view is likely to lead to decreased employee commitment toward the organization and increased intentions to leave.52 One way to improve all four justice dimensions is to set clear rules that are applied consistently by all supervisors. • Inclusiveness. Good systems include input from multiple sources on an ongoing basis. First, the evaluation process must represent the concerns of all the people who will be affected by the outcome. Consequently, employees must participate in the process of creating the system by providing input regarding what behaviors or results will be measured and how. This is particularly important in today’s diverse and global organizations including individuals from different cultural backgrounds, which may lead to different views regarding what is performance and how it should be measured.53 Second, input about employee performance should be gathered from the employees themselves before the appraisal meeting.54 In short, all participants must be given a voice in the process of designing and implementing the system. Such inclusive systems are likely to lead to more successful systems including less employee resistance, improved performance, and fewer legal challenges Openness. Good systems have no secrets. First, performance is evaluated frequently and performance feedback is provided on an ongoing basis. Therefore, employees are continually informed of the quality of their performance. Second, the appraisal meeting consists of a two-way communication process during which information is exchanged, not delivered from the supervisor to the employee without his or her input. Third, standards should be clear and communicated on an ongoing basis. Finally, communications are factual, open, and honest. • Correctability. The process of assigning ratings should minimize subjective aspects; however, it is virtually impossible to create a system that is completely objective because human judgment is an important component of the evaluation process. When employees perceive an error has been made, there should be a mechanism through which this error can be corrected. Establishing an appeals process, through which employees can challenge what may be unjust decisions, is an important aspect of a good performance management system. • Standardization. As noted earlier, good systems are standardized. This means that performance is evaluated consistently across people and time. To achieve this goal, the ongoing training of the individuals in charge of appraisals, usually managers, is a must. • Ethicality. Good systems comply with ethical standards. This means that the supervisor suppresses her personal self-interest in providing evaluations, evaluates only performance dimensions for which she has sufficient information, and respects the privacy of the employee. In addition, the supervisor evaluates only performance dimensions for which she has sufficient information, and the privacy of the employee is respected.

Paper For Above instruction

The performance management system (PMS) at Network Solutions, Inc. presents both promising advantages and potential drawbacks, grounded in its structure and implementation practices. Analyzing these aspects through the lens of an ideal PMS, as outlined by Aguinis (2013), allows us to predict likely outcomes based on current features and gaps within the system.

Positive Outcomes and Advantages

One significant anticipated benefit is the alignment of individual objectives with organizational goals, which enhances strategic congruence. By cascading goals from the corporate level down to individual employees and linking performance to organizational targets, Network Solutions can improve clarity in expectations and focus efforts on key priorities (Aguinis, 2013). This structured approach is likely to increase productivity, motivation, and engagement, especially among high performers classified as Rating 1, who are given additional development opportunities and retention efforts (Aguinis, 2013). Furthermore, the forced distribution system may foster a competitive environment that incentivizes employees to perform at their best to avoid the lower rating categories (Pulakos, 2009).

Another advantage lies in the potential for more accurate differentiation among employee performance levels. The defined rating categories and associated consequences allow managers to identify both high performers and those requiring improvement, which can guide targeted development and corrective actions (Aguinis, 2013). The emphasis on training and the standardization of evaluation procedures across divisions also bolster the system’s reliability, helping ensure consistency in performance appraisal (Berkovich, 2020). Additionally, by establishing clear performance expectations and a formal development planning process, the system supports fairness perceptions from the distributive and informational justice perspectives, assuming transparent communication occurs (Rawls, 1971; Lind & Tyler, 1988).

Negative Outcomes and Disadvantages

Despite these benefits, several potential disadvantages emerge. One concern is that forced distribution may engender perceptions of unfairness, especially from a distributive justice standpoint, if employees feel that their individual contributions are not adequately recognized or that ratings are imposed to fit a predetermined percentage (Aguinis, 2013). This can diminish motivation, commitment, and job satisfaction (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). Additionally, the focus on ranking employees into rigid categories may lead to unhealthy competition, undermining collaboration (Pulakos, 2009). It may also cause managers to focus solely on achieving the assigned distribution rather than objectively evaluating performance, which could compromise the validity of the ratings (London, 2003).

Another drawback concerns fairness perceptions from a procedural and interpersonal perspective. If employees perceive that evaluation procedures are inconsistent or biased, or that supervisors lack empathy and transparency, this can deteriorate interpersonal justice and reduce trust in the system (Lind & Tyler, 1988). The lack of a formal appeals process to correct perceived errors could exacerbate perceptions of unfairness. Moreover, the system's emphasis on rankings and consequences might restrict openness, as managers may be reluctant to provide honest, constructive feedback, fearing impact on performance rankings (Aguinis, 2013).

Finally, the focus on normative distribution and ratings tied directly to rewards may encourage behavior aimed at short-term performance rather than genuine development. This approach can neglect the importance of individual growth, learning, and intrinsic motivation, which are vital for sustainable performance improvement (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Additionally, cultural differences across global divisions can challenge perceptions of fairness, especially if performance standards are not adapted for diverse cultural values and practices (Hofstede, 1980).

References

• Aguinis, H. (2013). Performance management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Berkovich, I. (2020). The reliability and validity of performance ratings: Implications for system design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(1), 45-60.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
• Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
• London, M. (2003). Employee performance management systems: A review. Human Resource Management Review, 13(3), 281-295.
• Pulakos, E. D. (2009). Performance management: A framework for continuous improvement. Human Resource Management, 48(1), 3–15.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.