3 Lessons That Will Boost Your Performance Management System

Whether you use a free Excel spreadsheet or a multi-million dollar HRIS, you are probably running into the same three problems. Here are three design lessons that can fix them.

TL;DR: Performance management systems often fail because they are designed for organisational needs, not for the people who use them. To fix this, focus on user-centric design principles that prioritise simplicity and ease of use. This approach helps create a system that managers and employees will actually engage with, leading to improved performance.

Whether you are using a free Excel spreadsheet or a multi-million dollar HRIS to manage your performance process, you are probably running into the same three problems: it is not a positive user experience, it is not promoting a positive interaction between a manager and an individual, and it is not positively changing or improving performance.

All three problems tend to originate in the design process, which tends to be HR- and IT-centric rather than user-centric. HR needs to 'get something in place'. IT needs the solution to fit within their application and infrastructure requirements. Neither starts with what managers and individuals actually need.

| Metric | Value | Source | | Managers feel comfortable having performance conversations | 2/10 | Peopletree Group research | | Of employees agree corrective feedback, if delivered correctly, improves performance | 92% | Peopletree Group research | | Of Microsoft Office users either never used Word or were light users - most people want basic functionality | 91% | Microsoft Office usage study |

What are the three common problems with performance management?

The three problems are universal because they share a common root cause: performance management processes are designed for the organisation, not for the people who have to use them.

HR needs data. IT needs compliance. Managers need to have difficult conversations. Employees need honest feedback. These are not the same needs - and a process designed for the first two will fail the second two every time.

How can adopting a user-centric design process help?

We interact with technology all the time. We have become aware of what a good user experience looks like. If we try a new application and it is confusing, difficult to navigate, or not useful, we delete it immediately.

The single biggest hurdle when designing performance management software is to overcome the expert trap. Experts understand the context, the connections, the background, and the theories within their field of expertise. Much of what they know is implicit. Experts want as much functionality as possible because they know how it can be used. But most users want, and only use, the basic functionality of any application.

Why is designing for simplicity important?

A study of 148,500 employees using Microsoft Office found that 91% of users either never used Word or would be considered light users. The majority of people want, and only use, the basic functionality of any application. The more it does, the more difficult it is to use.

There is also an in-built conflict of interests in performance management. As a manager, the thing that costs you the most is to tell someone how good they are - because then they will want a raise, or realise their value and leave. As an individual, the thing you need to hear the most is where you can improve - but if you accept that feedback, you might be penalised.

The challenge in designing a performance process is to create a shared and common interest. We discuss common interests, but we argue about different interests.

Lesson 2: Design for interaction

In a recent study, only 2 out of 10 managers felt comfortable having performance conversations. But 92% of employees agreed that corrective feedback, if delivered correctly, is effective at improving performance.

The performance process should be about more than recording goals and collecting ratings. It should create a common purpose - how do we achieve your goals together? - and support that conversation. Technology should guide the conversation, not replace it.

Lesson 3: Design for impact

You can only ever measure what has happened, so all measures are backward-looking. While that is useful for measuring performance, it is useless for managing performance. A performance process should achieve four things: communicate goals and expectations, motivate and reward the achievement of those goals, predict the likelihood of a successful outcome, and diagnose problems along the way.

The ability to predict a successful outcome and diagnose a problem if it occurs are two forward-looking factors. They can change what will happen. Imagine if your performance system could tell a manager that an individual is unlikely to deliver their work on time - and what they could do about it. That is information that changes the future.

The design principle Performance management processes, and the systems that support them, need to be redesigned from a user-centric perspective. Compliance-driven administrative processes do not have a positive impact on business results. Design thinking has three lessons to offer: simplicity, interaction, and impact.

TalentPrint - Performance Management Designed for Humans TalentPrint is built on user-centric design principles that make performance management simple, interactive, and impactful. It guides managers through development conversations and gives employees the feedback they need to grow. See TalentPrint's Performance Management Features

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do most performance management systems fail to boost performance?

Most performance management systems fail because their design prioritises HR and IT requirements over the actual needs of managers and employees. This leads to complex, difficult-to-use systems that do not encourage positive interactions or meaningful performance improvement.

How can user-centric design improve our performance management system?

User-centric design focuses on the needs and experiences of managers and employees, making the system intuitive and easy to use. By simplifying processes and functionality, it encourages greater engagement and ensures the system supports effective feedback and development, directly boosting performance management.

What does "design for simplicity" mean in the context of performance management?

Designing for simplicity means creating a performance management system with basic, essential functionalities that are easy for everyone to understand and use. This avoids overwhelming users with too many features, which often leads to low adoption and frustration, making the system more effective.

What are the common problems with traditional performance management approaches?

Traditional performance management often suffers from poor user experience, a lack of positive interaction between managers and individuals, and an inability to genuinely improve performance. These issues stem from a design process that is organisational-centric rather than focused on the end-users' practical needs.