Deloitte's Reinvented Performance Management System vs Coles Performance Management System

This report compares Deloitte's reinvented performance management system with Coles performance management system. It identifies gaps in Coles' system and provides recommendations for adopting the best approach to performance management. The report emphasizes the importance of active two-way communication, quarterly or per-project performance snapshot, measuring the planning or initiative of the leader, changing training objectives, and implementing performance intelligence.

Running head: STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Strategic Human Resource Management
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
2.0 Discussion........................................................................................................................................2
2.1 Analysis Deloitte’s redesigned performance management system.............................................2
2.2 Deloitte’s reinvented performance management approach Vs Coles performance management
system..........................................................................................................................................5
2.3 Recommendation for Coles for adopting best approach performance management...................7
3.0 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................9
4.0 Reference List................................................................................................................................11

2STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
1.0 Introduction
An organization can attain effective brand reputation, competitive advantage and greater
customer base if the performance of the company is good. Mone and London (2018) stated that
performance of an organization can be measured through the competency of the employees
working collaboratively for accomplishing the organizational objectives. Awadh and Alyahya
(2013) furthermore depicted that thus an organization have to measure the performance of the
employees whether or not they are able to fulfill the role roles given to them and the resource
available are suitable for them.
Deloitte have reinvented the system of the performance management that can recognize
varying performance anytime and illustrate strategies that boost the performance in the future.
The other organization that is taken into consideration is Coles. This report will analyze the
Deloitte’s redesigned performance management system, compare the developed system with
performance management system of Coles and then identify some gaps that are not present in
later organization. Lastly, based on the identified gap, recommendation to the Coles will be
demonstrated for adopting the best approach of the performance management to manage their
employees.
2.0 Discussion
2.1 Analysis Deloitte’s redesigned performance management system
According to the survey conducted by Deloitte, it has been found that 58% of the
respondents agree that the performance management system that is followed in their
organization, does not address employee engagement and their effective performance (Harvard

3STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Business Review 2018). Thus, the main reason for reinventing the performance management
system is to focus on fueling performance based on the future requirement and not on the
assessment of the past. Deloitte adopts the strategy of separating the compensation decisions
from the daily performance management (Harvard Business Review 2018). The prime reason for
considering this strategy is to develop a better understanding of the performance based on the
quarterly result or per project outcome. The result of the Deloitte’s survey also shows that an
organization on an average spend close to 2 million hours a year for assessing the performance of
the employees (Harvard Business Review 2018). However, the major mistake that the manager
of the organization consider is that they talk about the approaches employee can take to obtain
the company’s goals and not on the discussion about their ability to attain the goals. Thus, it can
be said that managing authorities of the organization need to assess the competency of the
working personnel and evaluate whether or not they need any resources and assistance to
enhance their ability to obtain the organizational goals.
Furthermore, another finding of the Deloitte’s reinventing performance management
highlights the fact that on evaluating individual’s skills always generates inconsistent data
(Harvard Business Review 2018). The prime reason behind the same is that on measuring
performance of the employee, the unique rating tendencies of the rater has been rated rather than
the performance of the ratee (Harvard Business Review 2018). Thus, the strategy that the can be
implemented by the organization is to evaluate their existing system. Deloitte found that most of
the workers agree that workers prefer to in the company as they get the opportunity to utilize
their strength. Thus, in the performance management session, the leader should be asked what
they do to enhance the performance of the employee so that they can obtain the organizational
goals more effectively rather than what the leader think about that particular individual.

4STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Performance intelligence should also be used in the organization. The main reason to utilize this
technology is that all the data can be evaluated to gain accurate outcome (Harvard Business
Review 2018). This intelligent tool help the organization to plot the graph based on which the
total number of high and low performing employee can be segregated. The major benefit through
the implementation of the performance intelligence is that the project manager does not have to
keep all the details in their mind to take a decision but the decision can be made based on the
report formulated through the software.
The face to face employee interview for the performance appraisal should also be
incorporated with the interview to the leader (Daoanis 2012). The leader should be questioned
regarding on the following important questions ‘whether or not they want the individual for a
compensation increase’, ‘whether or not they want the individual in their team’, ‘whether or not
the employee is at risk of lower performance’ and ‘whether or not the individual is eligible for
instant promotion’ (Harvard Business Review 2018). The criteria are that this evaluation should
be based on a particular project rather than for a selected time span. The management people
should also assess the individual people more closely to find whether or not the concerned
individual is capable to handle difficult project and contribution from the selected individual
apart from the other formal job responsibilities. Thus, it is effective to consider the immediate
leader rather than higher managing authority, who focuses only on the numbers for measuring
the contributions (Elnaga and Imran 2013). Deloitte also emphasized on considering those
people, who are immediate leaders and known the employee personally for the evaluation of the
individual in the organization (Harvard Business Review 2018).
The leaders also have to do regular check-ins with their team members so that they can
revive heir morale for accomplishing their job responsibilities. The report also consist that this

5STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
check-ins should be done once in a week otherwise, the team member’s priorities can become
vague and they may be distracted. The team leader can ask these individual regarding the future
goals and suggest them if they lack any potential to adopt those goals (Harvard Business Review
2018). Moreover, according to the Deloitte’s reinvented performance management aspect, the
evaluation of the performance should be conducted.
2.2 Deloitte’s reinvented performance management approach Vs Coles performance
management system
The three main purpose of the performance management are strategic purpose,
administrative purpose and developmental purpose. Lee and Steers (2017) stated that strategic
purpose illustrates the situation to achieve goals and feedback system that allow the employee to
get support for their required behavior for the job role. In addition to that, Selvarajan and
Cloninger (2012) depicted that administrative purpose highlight the support provided to the
administrators for their decision on designing the salary structure, promotions, layoffs, retention
and termination. The term developmental purpose highlights the areas in which the employee can
make improvement in order to prove their ability and attain a good rating by their leaders.
Coles adopted the approach of comparative strategy to measure the performance of the
employees. Gupta and Kumar (2012) stated that in comparative approach, the performance of
one employee is compared to other employees. Boxall (2012) stated that in this approach not the
individual competency is measured as a result some of the employee suffers from more
dissatisfaction and inferiority. The major problem arise in Coles due to this reason is that
working personnel get less motivation to work in the origination and they make regular mistakes
in their work. Thus, when compared to the Deloitte’s reinvented performance management
system, the gap of analyzing individual potential can be observed.

6STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
In addition to that, in Coles, employee performances are considered on how many clients
they have handled throughout the month (Cravens et al. 2015). Since, Coles perform a retail
operation and they have to handles different client through the day, their potential can be
measured based on the number of the users they have addressed. A scorecard system has been
followed in Coles according to that the performance of the employee is rated. The adopted
approach leads to Idiosyncratic Rater Effect based on Salleh Nair and Harun (2012) stated that
the rater often rates the rate according to their perception and not on the individual’s potentiality.
However, Srivastava (2013) stated that the different human have different perception and some
of the consumer take larger time to understand what their executives trying to make them
understand. In this case, the newly introduced strategy suggested by the Deloitte can be
implemented that is to evaluate the performance based on the type of the work a person handles.
Therefore, the gap of human evaluation is also found in Coles.
Coles has performance evaluation training for their employees. The main objectives of
the training is to make the employee learn about identifying and adopting necessary style of
leadership based on any situation that can maximize their competency, motivating the people so
that they can achieve the organizational goals, identify the best suitable approach so that the
performance of the individual can be enhanced for completing the desired goals, discussing key
skills in giving and receiving performance feedback and a range of strategies for effective
performance (Colestraining.com 2018). On comparison with the Deloitte’s reinvented
performance evaluation management, it is found the Coles training session does not allow the
organization to assess the potential of each individual and then offer them the desire roles and
responsibility through which they can utilize their knowledge base. In case of Coles, employee

7STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
could not say that they are using their strength and best knowledge to accomplish the
organizational goals.
Lastly, there is a gap in the communication between the leaders and the employee. The
main reason is that Coles follows centralized structure, where managers are taking decisions and
the employees have to follow the decisions made by the managers. Ashkenas et al. (2015)
highlighted that in centralized structure, autocratic approach is mostly followed and leaders have
less time to communicate with their lower end workers. In Coles also, since a department has
many people, the leaders does not evaluate individual’s performances and interact with the
employees directly. This leads to the problem of a rating system that is done based on
Idiosyncratic Rater Effect, which on comparison with the Deloitte’s reinvented performance
evaluation indicates the gap that Coles’ leader do not conduct regular check-ins with the
employees.
2.3 Recommendation for Coles for adopting best approach performance management
Active two-way communication- The objective of weekly check-in can be obtained on
developing active two-way communication in the working environment of the Coles. Men
(2014) stated that two way communications can be developed both through formal and informal
gatherings. Deloitte’s performance evaluation report shows the leaders should know about their
subordinates in order to known them personally and then evaluates their ability based on the
knowledge they have attained through interacting with the employees. The leaders of Coles can
utilize the modern social media application for creating a group chat room in which all the
subordinate can communicate with the leaders effectively and hence all their concerns. The
employee can also share their achievements and failures and also ask for suggestions.

8STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Quarterly or per-project performance snapshot- According to Deloitte’s performance
evaluation report, it is found that evaluating the performances once annually does not always
accurate perception regarding the person’s ability. Thus, Coles can evaluate the performance
evaluation system four times a years and it will also show a better result if the evaluation is
dome after a peak months like Christmas, New Year and Easter day. This per project evaluation
cans also the leaders of the Coles to identify their important asset that can handle more people
while maintaining the quality of the work and effectiveness for accomplishing the same.
Measuring the planning or initiative of the leader- Buller and McEvoy (2012) stated that a
leader knows their follower’s strength and weakness well and they also know how to manage
their pros and cons for the team and organizations progress. Thus, apart for interviewing the
working personnel on what their plan for fulfilling the targets, the immediate leaders should also
assess about their plans to address the strength and weakness of the employees. The leaders of
the employees should be asked about their plan, whether or not they want the individual for a
compensation increase, whether or not they want the individual in their team whether or not the
employee is at risk of lower performance and whether or not the individual is eligible for instant
promotion along with justification. Another suitable method that can be used is that during the
quarterly or per-project performance session both the individual and their leaders should be
called together for the discussion of the performance rating session. This process will allow the
subordinate to learn how their leader’s perception is towards then and how they want them to
perform. This will also raise the sense of being valued among the working personnel.
Changing training objectives- In recent times, Coles follows the objectives to train the
employees of the organization to learn effective leadership skills and working procedures so that
the organizational goals can be obtained. However, Coles should assess the strength of every

9STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
employee and they can utilize their competency to accomplish their organizational goals. In this
way, the employee can find a suitable job where they can use their strength. This process will
also help the organization for better productive outcome. The main problem that can be raised in
this process is that the individual evaluation will be time consuming. However, this problem can
be overcome by asking the immediate leader to prepare the report of their team members which
will reduce the effect for one performance manager to assess individual strength.
Implement Performance Intelligence- Coles can make technological development in their
organization’s performance evaluation system through performance intelligence. Through this
system the report subsisted by immediate leaders and the survey result based on the leader’s
perception should be processed. This will help the organization to draw a perception regarding
the working ability of the person. A question may get arise that leader may be give an individual
less score based on some persona issues among them and hence represent biasness in the choice
and inaccuracy in the performance management result. However, the data point of every
individual should have to be inked with the report of their productivity throughout the quarter so
that it can be fetched by the performance manager to evaluate whether or not the leader has given
a biased decision.
3.0 Conclusion
Through this report it is found that the Deloitte have reinvented the system of the
performance management that can recognize varying performance anytime and illustrate
strategies that boost the performance in the future. The analysis Deloitte’s redesigned
performance management system also illustrated that evaluating individual’s skills always
generates inconsistent data. Thus, in the performance management session, the leader should be
asked what they do to enhance the performance of the employee so that they can obtain the

10STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
organizational goals more effectively. Moreover, performance intelligence should also be
implemented as this intelligent tool help the organization to plot the graph based on which the
total number of high and low performing employee can be segregated. Face to face employee
interview for the performance appraisal should also be incorporated with the interview to the
leader. Questions ‘whether or not they want the individual for a compensation increase’,
‘whether or not they want the individual in their team’, ‘whether or not the employee is at risk of
lower performance’ and ‘whether or not the individual is eligible for instant promotion’ should
also be asked to the leaders. In addition to that, the leaders also have to do regular check-ins with
their team members. Coles adopted the approach of comparative strategy to measure the
performance of the employees and the major problem arise in Coles due to this reason is that
working personnel get less motivation to work in the origination. Coles’ employee performances
are considered on how many clients they have handled. The main objectives of performance
evaluation training of Coles is to make the employee learn about identifying and adopting
necessary style and the gap in the communication between the leaders and the employee is also
found. The recommendation for Coles suggested after the comparison are active two-way
communication, quarterly or per-project performance snapshot, measuring the planning or
initiative of the leader, changing training objectives and implement performance intelligence.

11STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
4.0 Reference List
Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Kerr, S., 2015. The boundaryless organization: Breaking
the chains of organizational structure. John Wiley & Sons.
Awadh, A.M. and Alyahya, M.S., 2013. Impact of organizational culture on employee
performance. International Review of Management and Business Research, 2(1), p.168.
Boxall, P., 2012. High‐performance work systems: what, why, how and for whom?. Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), pp.169-186.
Buller, P.F. and McEvoy, G.M., 2012. Strategy, human resource management and performance:
Sharpening line of sight. Human resource management review, 22(1), pp.43-56.
Colestraining.com., 2018. Coles Training – Managing Performance. [online] Available at:
http://www.colestraining.com/management-skills/managing-performance/ [Accessed 27 May
2018].
Cravens, K.S., Oliver, E.G., Oishi, S. and Stewart, J.S., 2015. Workplace culture mediates
performance appraisal effectiveness and employee outcomes: A study in a retail setting. Journal
of Management Accounting Research, 27(2), pp.1-34.
Daoanis, L.E., 2012. Performance appraisal system: it’s implication to employee
performance. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 2(3), pp.55-62.
Elnaga, A. and Imran, A., 2013. The effect of training on employee performance. European
Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), pp.137-147.
Gupta, V. and Kumar, S., 2012. Impact of performance appraisal justice on employee
engagement: a study of Indian professionals. Employee Relations, 35(1), pp.61-78.
Harvard Business Review., 2018. Reinventing Performance Management. [online] Available at:
https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-management [Accessed 27 May 2018].

12STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Lee, T.W. and Steers, R.M., 2017. Facilitating effective performance appraisals: The role of
employee commitment and organizational climate. In Performance measurement and theory (pp.
75-93). Routledge.
Men, L.R., 2014. Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership, communication
channels, and employee satisfaction. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), pp.264-284.
Mone, E.M. and London, M., 2018. Employee engagement through effective performance
management: A practical guide for managers. Routledge.
Salleh, R., Nair, M.S. and Harun, H., 2012. Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
turnover intention: A case study on employees of a retail company in Malaysia. World Academy
of Science, Engineering and Technology, 72(1), pp.316-323.
Selvarajan, T.T. and Cloninger, P.A., 2012. Can performance appraisals motivate employees to
improve performance? A Mexican study. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 23(15), pp.3063-3084.
Srivastava, S., 2013. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment relationship: Effect of
personality variables. Vision, 17(2), pp.159-167.