What is performance management? We’ve talked to several HR departments on a daily basis that don’t know this definition very well or simply mix up performance management wir performance rating.
In any way, it is crystal clear that within the scope of performance management there is a measuring component as well as an improvement or development one, and what is more, performance might not be dissociated from the company’s strategic objectives.
Herman Aguinis, one of the biggest scholars is industrial / organizational psychology, whose books are mandatory reading for any HR professional committed to this issue, defines performance management as “the ongoing process of identification, measuring, and development of either individuals or teams, as well as the alignment of such performance with the company’s strategic objectives” (Aguinis, 2009).
Managing means measuring and improving or measuring for improving. Vicente Falconi defines management as “problem-solving”. In both cases, management performance (we use performance and action interchangeably here) may also be defined as measuring for improving performance or solve performance issues.
In any way, it is crystal clear that within the scope of performance management there is a measuring component as well as an improvement or development one, and what is more, performance might not be dissociated from the company’s strategic objectives.
What is the context of performance management?
The literature of industrial / organizational psychology (although it was industrial at the beginning, it’s becoming organizational due to proportional increase of non-industrial organizations overall) has always been focused on the measuring aspect or performance assessment.
Most of the literature is focused on the subtleties of performance assessment surveys design in order to:
- increase satisfaction with the process;
- improve fairness perception in the process;
- improve accuracy in the process.
Additionally, the traditional literature addresses performance mainly from an individual perspective. However, there is a number of occupations and areas for working within organizations where personnel’s individual performance measuring is easier and even desirable nowadays.
Spotify became known in HR circles not only for its music streaming app, but also because of its way of organizing product teams. In the Scandinavian company, designers, back-end engineers, agile methodology quality control coaches comprise the multifunctional teams in charge of specific aspects of its staples (the websites and music applications).
The teams organize through Scrum, an agile methodology for project management and software development. Thus, a product manager defines what will be done by the team in sprints ranging from two weeks to a month and the team gets together to perform tasks in the most efficient way possible.
The outcomes of the efforts of those teams are usually objective and mensurable: a team in charge of streaming quality, for instance, might have its performance rated through the number of users that had problems with unwanted breaks or quality loss in audio.
However, it may be hard at times to tell exactly who offered more or less contribution to this performance: each new feature or system bug correction comes from the effort of a number of team members, each of them contributing to their expertise in supplementary ways.
We’ll see more about the theme of result measuring later, but we’d like to stress here the issues in assessing team members’ individual results in contemporary workplaces, which are becoming more and more common.
What’s the purpose of performance?
Performance management exists, ultimately, to improve a company’s performance through performance of each one of its team members, whether individually or collectively.
A company’s performance may be measured through various ways. In the early century, perhaps the only performance-related aspect that interested a businessman was the profit left at the end of the month for company shareholders.
As the years passed by, other aspects have been added to the concept of company performance. The second half of the 20th century showed that profit itself can be such a miopic performance measure, as it ignores how ready the company is to keep generating profits to its shareholders in the future. Under this discussion Balanced Scorecard was born, defining some dimensions of a company’s performance that must be evaluated together, in a balanced way:
- Financially: its growth, health, cash flow generation, profitability, etc.;
- Clients: client satisfaction, market share, etc.;
- Internal processes: innovation, operational aspects, services, etc.;
- Learning and growth: staff satisfaction, capacities, training, etc.
The performance management at stake in this article is the one that entails the company’s personnel and is usually under the responsibility of the human resources area. We’re interested in processes that, among other issues, develop staff members performance so that company results improve, regardless of how it would define its performance (we strongly believe in an array of supplementary metrics and aims, as shown by Balanced Scorecard).
The clarity of any process or management program has as its main goal improvement of company performance is key and there’s usually lack of it for a number of HR professionals. If it doesn’t happen, the process isn’t working out.
But how does this impact from performance management occur on the company’s performance management?
The relationship between a company’s team members ant its performance is direct.
We understand development as the increase in individuals’ capacity to produce results (or contribute to a group’s outcomes) through improvement in productivity. Improvement in productivity can be understood as follows:
- do “more with less”;
- broaden the scope of responsibilities;
- do activities with higher impact or leveraging;
- improve the quality of the work done
The goal of developing the performance management process is most likely the one with the highest return for company performance – and perhaps one of the most neglected.
As traditionally sketched, performance management programs are performance measuring oriented (which, as we’ll see, fuel administrative and talent management processes in the company) than input production as well as guidelines for engaged team members to be better at what they do.
Decision-making and talent management
Another objective that has its importance usually overestimated by executives and human resources areas is input production for administrative and talent management decision-making in a company.
Inherently quantitative processes that encompass the vast majority of performance management practices, i.e., multiple-choice surveys where competencies shown and outcomes produced by each team member are assessed.
The great product of these evaluations is differentiation among employees, which serves as a basis for making talent management decisions, such as:
- Who should be promoted by merit;
- Who should receive pay raises;
- Who should occupy open (or likely to be open) positions in the organization (with or without promotion);
- Who should be fired, and so on.
Right above we said that the importance of these decisions is often overestimated. This is because the vast majority of companies do not have the size or complexity to make the talent decisions we are talking about frequent or complex.
In companies with fewer than 500 employees, for example, these decisions can often be made intuitively. And what’s more, the positive effect on performance of meritocracy through variable pay for performance is scientifically quite controversial, with inconclusive and often counterproductive studies.
Strategy and performance management
Another key outcome of performance management processes is the execution of the company’s strategy.
In many organizations, the results produced by employees are evaluated using goals that are derived from strategic objectives – mission, vision, short and medium-term plans – and therefore tend to contribute to the execution of the company’s strategy.
Even if the goals are not broken down, objective numbers can be measured, such as:
- quality – for example the percentage of flaws on a production line;
- productivity – the number of invoices processed;
- cost – the adherence of a company’s management to the annual budget.
In all cases, whether there are targets or not, the results that are aligned with the organization’s strategy can be measured, thus ensuring that its strategy is achieved.
Culture and performance management
Another slightly more subjective aspect of a performance management program is to ensure that the company’s employees are acting on a day-to-day basis in accordance with the culture and precepts defined as important by the organization.
This can happen both in measuring team members’ behavior and in directing – developing – their behavior in alignment with the company’s cultural behavior.
Legal aspects of performance management
Finally, performance management can serve an important legal role in companies, as it serves as corroborative evidence of job performance for any labor claims that a company may face from its employees. Thus, it is important that the processes are properly documented in reliable systems that can be consulted over a long period, and that maintain an employee “medical record.
It is worth noting that the quality of a system for legal purposes can often conflict with the quality of the system for employee development purposes. In these cases, it is up to the company to consult legal experts and weigh the two purposes in designing its system.
What are the two dimensions of performance?
Most experts divide job performance into two major categories:
An intuitive way to understand the difference between results and behavior is to think that results are “what” the employee produces, and behavior is “how” the employee comes up with those results.
Both performance categories are important because they will serve as the backbone of the performance management cycle, which we will discuss later.
What does the performance management cycle look like?
The performance management cycle is the main process of a performance management program. Below is a diagram of how a typical performance management cycle works:
As we can see, the performance management cycle begins with the definition of performance expectations between team member, manager and company, and ends with an evaluation of that performance, immediately starting a new cycle with a new definition of expectations, in a “continuous” manner, as we saw in Aguinis’ definition at the beginning of this article.
The beginning of any performance management cycle is the definition of performance expectations between the employee, his manager, and the company.
Performance expectations are represented and communicated in a number of ways among these three participants. Here are some of them:
The job description is the most fundamental document defining expectations between an employee and the company. When well written it should always outline in relation to the position/function filled by the employee:
- The “mission”, i.e., what the position/role exists for;
- The main responsibilities associated with it;
- The main indicators that measure success in the role;
- Competencies, knowledge, and skills required.
Many companies neglect job descriptions because they turn them into dead, boring, overly generic documents that end up saying nothing to the employee about what is expected of him. But when the job description is used well, it can be an extremely clear and objective way to delimit expectations.
Another way to define a company’s expectations of an employee is to define and communicate what behavior is expected (the “how” we mentioned above).
Behavior can be directly derived from the job descriptions (which in turn come from the analysis of the work to be done – job analysis), it can be common to all employees (in cases of critical competencies derived from the company’s strategy) or even derived from the values of the company’s culture.
In some companies, the behavior is common to all employees, and in others it may be specific to each position, seniority level, and/or functional area (a mix of the two types can also be used). Therefore, the behavior matrix for a given function can be derived from the work to be performed, the company’s critical competencies and values, and also specific to the position, functional area, or seniority level of the function.
If the team member knows what behavior is expected of him, he can direct his behavior during the cycle, to work in a way that is more in line with what is expected of him.
Activities, indicators, targets, and projects: what are they?
Another important aspect of team members’ expectations at each beginning of a cycle is the definition of the results to be achieved (the “what” we mentioned above).
The most traditional and basic way of defining what is expected of a team member is by defining the activities that he or she will perform. The activities are usually derived from a study of the company’s processes, which are broken down into steps and activities.
These activities are, in turn, assigned to different functions and team members. The main activities of a position/role are usually explained in its job description. An example of a task is “closing product sales contracts with current and new customers”, which can be defined as important for the employee between him, the company and the manager. Thus, at each start of the cycle, activities are defined that the employee must perform.
One step ahead of the activities are the indicators, which are ways of measuring the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the activities performed by a team member. In this case, satisfactory levels can be set for these indicators. One indicator linked to the above example, for example, is the “number of product sales contracts closed per month”. Team members, companies, and managers can define at each beginning of a cycle, for example, that the team member should do as many “contracts” as possible.
The goals are as follows. Goals usually define objective thresholds that must be reached by the employee in the indicators that measure his activities.
Here, companies, team members, and managers define a threshold that usually involves increasing or decreasing an indicator (improvement targets) or keeping it within acceptable limits (maintenance targets).
Examples: in the case above, you can define that the employee must close at least 30 product sales contracts in the cycle (starting from a performance of 27 in the previous cycle, that is, an improvement target), and that the contracts are necessarily closed with payment terms between 45 and 60 days (a maintenance target).
Finally, the last way to define expectations about “what” is expected from the team member is defining projects that should be conducted by the team member in the cycle. Projects are a little different from goals, activities, and indicators because they are usually not trivial enough to be activities, nor are they so measurable that they can be measured with indicators or targets on those indicators.
So how to measure projects? The most common way is breaking the project into milestones, or partial deliverables, that are delimited by cost, time, and scope parameters.
An example of a project that follows the logic of the examples we have been using is “open the Midwest market to the company” and that may have as partial deliverables, which will tell the manager and the employee if the project is being conducted as expected, “map 20 customers within the segment x by December 20”, “contact at least 15 of the customers and set up meetings to present the company by March 30” and “close at least 1 product sales contract with one of these customers by June 10”.
What is IDP and how does it connect to these other issues?
The last form of defining expectations between an employee, his/her manager, and the company that we will talk about here is the IDP, which is nothing more than a development guideline that will be the team member’s focus during the cycle and that must be complemented by an action plan per development area that contains practical actions that must be carried out by the employee in this development journey.
It is normal for the IDP to be composed from the areas that were positive and negative highlights of the team member in the last performance evaluation and that are aligned with the business needs and the employee’s career prospects and expectations.
In some companies, development areas are necessarily linked to behavior, which is linked to competencies and company values. In other ones, the team member is freer to define his or her areas of development, as long as his or her manager agrees.
In any case, the development areas defined in the IDP serve as expectations that are agreed upon between the employee, on the one hand, and the manager and the company, on the other, in relation to the cycle that is starting.
What is performance appraisal?
If the performance management cycle necessarily begins with some process of defining and communicating performance expectations, it ends (and automatically starts again) with a performance appraisal.
The main objectives of performance evaluation are as follows:
- Measure team members’ performance for decision-making purposes;
- Provide inputs for the employee to develop, that is, to improve his performance in the next cycle.
What does the structure of the performance appraisal look like?
Performance appraisal usually consists of a series of surveys that contain questions to be answered by one or more appraisers about an appraisee and that address aspects pertinent to the two dimensions of performance we have discussed: behavior (“how”) and results (“what”).
Behavior is usually assessed on an individual basis, and can be grouped based on themes:
In the example above, for instance, the survey has a section titled “Company Values”, and, within it, behavior derived from the company values are listed, in this case, “Thinks Like an Owner” and “Communicates Well”.
The model pictured above is widely used in competency and behavioral assessments: an observable behavior, “Think Like an Owner,” is quantitatively assessed by the assessor.
In some companies, a connection is made between behavior derived from the values, the critical competencies, and the functional competencies of the job. In other ones, which opt for simplicity, only the appraisal of critical competencies is done.
Another defining point of performance appraisal, especially in its behavioral component, is the chosen scale of appraisal.
The scale has three major aspects to be defined. The first of these is the number of options on the scale. Some companies discuss the merits of an even-numbered scale (for example, of 4 options), because on an even-numbered scale there is no “middle ground,” as being a way to avoid the central tendency of evaluations, which leads most raters to choose middling options in their appraisals. Other companies opt for larger scales, of 5 options, as a way to make the evaluations more precise.
Labeling of chosen options
Another important aspect is the labeling of the chosen options. In some cases, companies choose to leave the options with numeric labels (for example 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). Other companies choose to replace the numbers with a scale of concepts (e.g. “far lower-than-expected”, “lower-than-expected”, “as expected”, “higher-than-expected”, and “far higher-than-expected”).
This aspect of the labels of the options on the scale leads us to a third list of options, related to the type of scale chosen. There are two major types of scales: relative scales and absolute scales.
Relative scales ask the appraiser to rate his appraisee relative to something. It can be, for example, in a manner relative to what is expected from the position (which we find quite efficient), as well as it can be in a manner relative to his peers (which we find far less efficient as a label for the evaluation scale). Absolute scales, on the other hand, ask the rater to rate his or her appraisee in an absolute way, without relation to what is expected or to other appraisees. This is the case with the “bad”, “average” and “good” scale).
Anchored rating scales
Finally, more sophisticated companies can make use of Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS), which are nothing more than descriptions of the behavior observable in each of the ratings/concepts of the rating scale.
It would be like, in the case above, having the description “Thinks like an owner in all situations, defining strategies, carrying out all initiatives and considering all possible risks and threats” tied to the score 5 of the behavior “Thinks Like an Owner”. BARS allow a high degree of accuracy in the evaluation but have a huge disadvantage in the complexity they generate in the performance evaluation process, often multiplying by a factor of 100 the effort required to define the criteria and scales for an evaluation.
Results are the most controversial dimension of performance to be evaluated. More simply, if the company is at a more basic stage of maturity in its assessment process, the assessor can rate the responsibilities and activities outlined in the job description on a given rating scale.
Thus, a financial analyst could be rated on “Produce the cash position reports without errors and in a timely manner” on a scale of 5 options, which evaluate his performance against what is expected from his position.
Indicators and goals
It is in the cases where there are indicators and targets that there is more controversy.
Some companies, such as Ambev, conduct the results evaluation in an absolutely objective and mathematical way: if a company employee has beaten 90% of his market share target, for example, he has a performance equivalent to 90% in that criterion/target.
It is worth mentioning that performance triggers and accelerators can be defined in goals, defining for example that below a certain market share floor the employee has 0% performance, and above a certain ceiling, has 120% performance. The point is that this relationship can be extremely objective but often unfair to the employee and his colleagues.
For example, we can think of a company team member who beats his goal and performs highly in the evaluation, but in order to reach this goal he had to neglect some important aspect of the company’s business, such as the long-term competitive sustainability of the company (imagine an employee who sells his products at no profit in order to beat his market share goal, thus undermining the company’s cash position and bottom line).
Or a team member who had a goal in the expectations setting stage that is no longer relevant, and therefore the company has drained resources previously available to the employee to other priorities, leaving him unable to beat the goal. In order to solve cases like these, in many companies the judgment of the manager is used to define if the goal has been properly achieved. You lose some numerical objectivity, but gain precision and fairness in the appraisal.
Advantage of using goals
The great advantage of using goals in evaluating a team member’s results lies, on the one hand, in the intuitive connection between goals and the company’s strategic objectives, which occurs through the deployment of these goals. On the other, in the adoption of more objective evaluation criteria, less subject, therefore, to cognitive biases, personal preferences, and injustices that can hinder the accuracy of the evaluators.
Risks of direct connection
Another risk of the direct connection between goals and performance is that the goals may look the same but have extremely different difficulties in practice.
Consider, for instance, two salespeople who have equal sales quotas, of BRL100,000 in a given cycle. On the other hand, consider that in the middle of the cycle the customer portfolio of one of them enters a severe recession caused by macroeconomic aspects, which end up, differently, favoring the customer portfolio of the second seller.
Now imagine that both deliver their BRL100,000 quotas at the end of the cycle. Who performed better? For these and other reasons, it is often advantageous to add an aspect of manager judgement in the evaluation, so that potential injustices and behavioral/purpose deviations are compensated for and evaluated.
Who appraises whom?
Another important aspect of performance appraisals is determining who will be the appraisers of a given appraisee.
The most basic type of performance appraisal is the one in which only the manager evaluates his subordinates.
Research proves, however, that the presence of some sort of self-assessment of the process significantly increases participants’ perceptions of fairness and satisfaction with the process. Therefore, it can be quite interesting to add a self-assessment component to the process.
However, not just any kind of self-assessment makes sense. According to DeNisi and Klugger (2000), it is not productive to let the appraisee compare his/her self-evaluation with the evaluations from other sources (such as the manager) in a direct way, that is, on the same criteria.
This can lead the appraisee to question his self-image and have his self-esteem shaken, which considerably worsens the chances of the appraisee acting positively and developing from the feedback received from the appraisal.
Therefore, it is worth thinking about obtaining the contributions of the appraisee in an indirect way, for example by asking him to summarize his main results and achievements of the year in a discursive manner, which can be used by the manager in the construction of his quantitative assessment of results, and not by asking the appraisee to do a self-assessment on a quantitative criterion akin to what his manager will do. In this way, the positive effects of perceived satisfaction and fairness are maintained, without the negative effects on the appraisee’s self-esteem.
The third source of appraisals (besides the manager and the appraisee himself) is the appraisal of “peers,” which is the name given generically to any employees in the company who are not the manager or the appraisee’s team members. Peer reviews make up so-called multi-source (multi-source or multi-rater) appraisals.
The belief behind adding peers to performance appraisals is that having more perspectives on employee performance can increase the accuracy of the appraisals. However, science finds no evidence to this effect. What is found, however, is a deterioration of collaboration and teamwork in teams where there is peer evaluation when using the results of the evaluations for decision-making purposes such as promotions, compensation, and dismissal.
Therefore, still in line with DeNisi and Klugger (2000), it should be strongly considered that peer participation in a performance management program be left to some kind of process disconnected from decision making and devoid of quantitative scores and be formatted solely and exclusively as developmental feedback.
Team Members of the Appraisee
Finally, the last remaining source of performance appraisals are the appraisee’s team members. This tends to be a critical and controversial component of performance appraisal: on the one hand, the perspective of an appraisee’s subordinates can be extremely educational and revealing to the process.
On the other, it is very common for team members to feel afraid of possible retaliation from a leader who learns about negative evaluations of those being evaluated. In short, it is something extremely difficult to execute successfully.
A good way to begin to get this perspective from those being led is to have a component of the company’s climate/engagement survey that begins to assess aspects of leadership and personnel management, and which are anonymized in their disclosure.
Google case study
At Google, for example, a part of the Googlegeist survey evaluated aspects of people management for many years, until it was segregated into a standalone survey, called the UFS, or Upward Feedback Survey, in which managers are evaluated by their subordinates anonymously.
What’s calibration of results like?
A very important step in a performance evaluation process is the calibration of its results.
The calibration of the results is nothing more than a series of rituals that aim to make the appraisals more accurate. In many companies the calibration is a meeting in which managers discuss their evaluations of their subordinates with each other, so that any discrepancies in the evaluation criteria used are brought to light.
When comparing “face-to-face”, the evaluations made by different managers about their subordinates, possible injustices can become very evident, such as some managers tending to be “nicer” with their team while others tend to be more demanding with theirs.
In some companies, the evaluation results are plotted on some kind of “curve” that shows what percentage of the appraisees received each band of scores and concepts. For example, at this time excessive allocations of appraisees can be identified on the “right” portion of the curve, which denotes high performance, and which may not necessarily reflect reality, especially when considering an evaluation scale relative to what is expected of the position.
It’s very unlikely that a company will have, for example, more than 50% of its employees performing “above” or “far above” what is expected for their respective positions.
In this spirit, some companies choose to “force the curve,” that is, to force the distribution of scores and concepts in a performance appraisal into a certain format. In these cases, it is common to have a ranking of all those evaluated in the process.
Once the ranking is done, if the forced curve says that only 10% of the appraisees can have the maximum concept, the top 10% of the ranking (for example, the top 20 in a company with 200 employees) receive their maximum concept, and so on up to the last ones.
The forced curve is a great source of heated discussions and possible injustice, precisely because it forces the employees of a company to obey a mandatory distribution of performance. This makes for differentiation where there aren’t necessarily differences in performance.
As a result, the use of the forced curve has been falling sharply among organizations and human resource areas. However, its use can still be useful in cases of turnaround and cultural change, where it may be important to terminate a large portion of a company’s worst-performing employees.
The product of this calibration exercise is the eventual revision of the evaluated scores and concepts that may be “out of calibration”, so that the evaluation results are as fair and accurate as possible.
Communicating the results: how does Feedback work?
The last step of the performance appraisal process, and therefore of the performance management cycle, is the feedback process, a meeting in which manager and employee (and eventually someone from the human resources area, such as a business partner) participate and where they discuss:
- The results of the assessment, that is, the behavior observed and the results achieved;
- Inputs for team members’ development for the next cycle;
- Decisions on promotion, compensation and so on
One of the main trends that has been developed in human resources areas is the separation of this feedback meeting into two distinct meetings: one where the results of the process and development inputs are discussed, and another where the decisions made in the cycle are communicated.
At Google, for example, these two meetings are separated by at least 1 month. According to Laszlo Bock, former Vice President of People Operations at Google, employees close their ears to development issues when they are waiting for decisions that will affect their future and their pocket (or, for that matter, when they are digesting decisions that may have been communicated). Therefore, two different meetings are held.
You may have noticed that we leave the term “feedback” in quotes when it is used to denote this meeting. This is because we think that these meetings – and in this Google apparently agrees with us – are much less about feedbacks and much more about process feedback.
How long is the cycle?
Finally, a key aspect of the design of a performance management cycle is its duration. Traditionally, most companies have structured their performance management cycles according to their company’s fiscal – therefore annual – calendar.
More recently there is a huge trend to shorten performance management cycles to semi-annual and even quarterly periods. However, complex processes of expectation setting, and performance evaluation can be extremely costly to the organization and therefore impractical to carry out more than once a year.
So some companies have simpler cycles, usually just focused on employee development and performance, more frequently, but maintain a super annual cycle where people decisions are made and from which the company’s talent management process is carried out.
Why should you use performance management software?
Now that you know all about performance management, it is time to understand why it is advantageous to use performance management software. We’ve selected the main topics for you to consider in the next section.
It’s not enough to conduct a performance appraisal and seek constant improvement in the performance management of your business if the leadership doesn’t have access to the history, right? Through performance management software, the organization has the possibility of comparing the evaluations made over the months, checking the evolution or involution of the team member.
When announcing this comparative result observed by the leadership, the time has come to bring feedback to the professional on how the development was throughout these months. Thus, there are more precise inputs to outline an evaluation plan for the next cycle, contributing effectively so that it can stand out – and, consequently, enabling better results for the business.
Analyze competencies and behavior that are lagging in specific areas
By defining small cycles of OKRs that align with company-wide OKRs, each employee will contribute in some way to achieving the intended macro goal. However, at the end of one year, if your vision has not been achieved, you need to look for learnings about the reasons that led to this result.
Through performance management software, one may analyze competencies and behaviors that are outdated and in specific areas. Thus, the team has the opportunity to generate cross-development action for the company or for a sector in particular.
Ease of form response
Making the process experience more fluid is what makes performance management software stand out. Through this tool, you may:
- bring more ease of response from the form – it takes the friction out of the process and makes the experience more positive for leaders and also for other employees;
- brings ease of managing the entire process – through the software, there is the possibility of easily creating the forms, duplicating them for the next cycle, and keeping track of who is responding and who is not.
When you hire a performance management software, you have a specialized team to assist you in the most modern practices of this strategy to apply to your business. This way, this team has the possibility to check evaluation models that work with other clients in the portfolio, so that they continue to constantly update the process in their organization.
More strategic HR
All these elements provided by performance management software contribute to making your company’s HR more strategic. Among what makes the business stand out, we highlight:
- improvement of internal communication;
- assimilation of the organizational culture at all levels;
- greater engagement of team members;
- reducing turnover;
- training of high performance teams.
We’ve reached the end of our article. We hope you have reached the goal we had for this text, of giving management and human resources professionals a solid foundation for understanding what performance management is, what performance appraisal is, and how these two topics are related.
Do you want to understand how performance management software can effectively help your business? Please talk to our team of specialists and have a customized service for your company’s reality!