Peri
Peri are the countries leading supplier and manufacturer of specialist building frames and scaffolding equipment. For a number of years they had been using an existing Performance Management system that wasn't meeting all their requirements and was seen by some to be cumbersome and unproductive. The Managing Director asked us to look at the current system and to propose an alternative approach that would better suit their culture and needs.
Need
Peri wanted a Performance Management System that was not a 'once a year' ritual and identified the key areas against which performance was to be reviewed. To achieve this we adopted a partnership process where the client gave us their views, ideas and suggestions and we melded this with our background, experience and knowledge of how to frame all the data acquired.
The process started with a series of interviews with strategic level managers; getting their views on where the business was going and what the future demands were going to be for people working within the company. From these comments a broad understanding was developed of both the culture and the broad areas that Peri needed to concentrate its performance management on. The second stage was a broader range of meetings where individual department or section demands were discussed. This information was fed back and refined in subsequent meetings.
Solution
The end result was a competency framework that defined a range of 'Core' values, which everyone in the business would find relevant to their job and function, this extended from Administrative and Labour grades up to and including Director Level. In addition, a range of ‘Technical’ competencies was added; these were demands or requirements of the function they were in which were unique and did not extend across the rest of the business. A matrix was built up with the Core competencies applicable to everyone, with Technical competencies being allocated to particular jobs. In no instance was any job weighted with more than 10 competencies.
Following on from this, based on feedback and the presentation of draft documents two kinds of Performance Appraisal systems were introduced, the adoption of the two systems was made as a free choice by the relative managers who were going to implement it. One system required individuals to select and choose their top strengths and the top areas for development; the other required their self-assessment against each of the competencies.
Results
The result was a performance appraisal system, which was 'owned' by the company not just adopted by them. Line managers liked the style of the paperwork as they felt it reflected their own values and ways of working. But most importantly of all; the key competencies, which would help Peri, continue developing the business had been identified and focussed on. In addition to this managers felt comfortable with their Performance Management system and enthusiastic about adopting it.