human resource strategic initiative summary of findings and recommendations l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Human Resource Strategic Initiative Summary of Findings and Recommendations PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Human Resource Strategic Initiative Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 48

Human Resource Strategic Initiative Summary of Findings and Recommendations - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

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

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Human Resource Strategic Initiative Summary of Findings and Recommendations' - bevis

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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
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

project team
Project Team

©2006 GMS

desired future state
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

desired outcome
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

key linkages with other initiatives
Key Linkages with Other Initiatives
  • Absence Management
  • Leadership Development
  • PeopleSoft
  • Succession Planning
  • Workforce Planning
  • Customer Service

©2006 GMS

potential challenges
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

design team process outline
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

stakeholder sub team goal
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

executive interview results themes
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

groups surveyed
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

survey results
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

survey results18
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

competency sub team goals
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

competency considerations
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

competency dictionary framework
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


Performance ManagementInter-Process Linkages



Do the job,

achieve the goals,

and get the results




“fully successful”


(not “superior”)


  • Agree on goals
  • Link to state and agency goals
  • Agree on responsibilities , tasks & projects
  • Performance log
  • Updated goals
  • Mid-year or quarterly review






Judge strengths

& weaknesses



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

intent performance management
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

business requirements enabling technologies
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

proposed factors to comprise overall performance rating
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

recommendations regarding overall ratings
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

other process recommendations
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

other process recommendations continued
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

return on investment
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

return on investment continued
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

summary return on investment
Summary - Return on Investment

Costs: Technology, Process Design, Training


  • $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

recommendations for implementation
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