How does the trend toward reducing the emphasis on performance rankings/ratings impact pay for performance?
Pros and cons of alternative ways of managing pay-for-performance and present a simpler approach to compensation
Over the last few years the discussion about scaling back the traditional performance management process has been heating up. In a recent Firing Line interview Josh Bersin reveals to Bill Kutik that fewer than 15% of organizations believe that the time they spend on performance management today is worth the amount of time they spend on it.
One of the first line items to get vetoed from traditional performance management is the concept of rating individual employees. This leaves organizations that are eager to embrace this revolution in performance management scrambling to answer one important question: How does the trend toward reducing the emphasis on performance rankings/ratings impact pay for performance?
In the past employee rankings and ratings were used to develop merit matrices to support pay-for-performance. But as organizations operate in a more agile work environment, the traditional models of merit-pay-increases and market-value compensation have the potential to introduce rigidities into rewarding top talent for high performance and retaining high-potential employees for future leadership development.
This webcast will discuss the pros and cons of alternative ways of managing pay-for-performance and present a simpler approach to compensation.
Most of the practices advocated by those who wish to “abandon” performance management actually are best practices, not new ideas. This webcast will highlight the many ways technology can improve performance management as well as the dysfunctional practices technology can foster and how to avoid them,
The thorn in nearly every manager’s side is the dreaded annual performance review. It not only takes value time and effort to implement, but the return on investment is preposterously bad. How can organizations rethink, redesign, and ...