Comparative Analysis of Performance Management: Deloitte & Accenture

This report provides an in-depth analysis of performance management strategies, focusing on a comparative study between Deloitte and Accenture. It begins with an executive summary highlighting the importance of performance management in organizational success and introduces various approaches such as quality, result, comparative, and attribute approaches. The report then delves into the specific methods employed by Deloitte, including their shift from traditional tools like 360-degree feedback to a more agile and data-driven approach. The report also examines Deloitte's use of result and comparative approaches, highlighting their evolution and the implementation of new techniques like team leader evaluations. Furthermore, the report compares Deloitte's strategies with those of Accenture, examining differences in their approaches, including the use of rating systems, continuous evaluation, and the integration of technology and data analytics. The conclusion summarizes the findings and offers insights into how these firms can further enhance their performance management processes.

Running head: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Performance Management
[Student name]
[Student number]
Word count: [.. insert word count here ..]

2PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Executive summary
Performance Management is a crucial ingredient and forms one of the central pillars of
running any organisation in an effective and efficient manner. There are various methods and
approaches by means of which the organisation’s employees can be provided both job
satisfaction and a method by which they can enhance their skills and increase their
productivity. Some of these approaches include quality, result, comparative, attribute and
result approach. In this paper the changes introduced by Deloitte as a firm in the face of
changing market patterns and globalisation are discussed and evaluated critically. After this a
comparison of the techniques and methods implied by Deloitte and Accenture are compared
and how the firms can further enhance this process are discussed through recommendations.
2

3PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................4
2. Performance Management Strategies.................................................................................4
2.1 Deloitte............................................................................................................................6
3. Comparison of Deloitte and Accenture Performance Management...................................8
Conclusion (or Conclusion and Recommendations)..............................................................11
Reference List..........................................................................................................................12
3

4PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
1. Introduction
Performance management has been the key to successful management systems
functioning in most of the corporate firms in today’s world. It is the performance of the
employees that determine the smooth and efficient functioning of a firm and helps in efficient
production generation (Mone & London, 2018). The employees and the workers associated
with the firm should be trained and assessed in such a way that they are ready for any kind of
stress management while keeping their quality of work at the highest level. This calls for
efficient capacity development techniques and performance regulation and assessment
(Buckingham & Goodall, 2015). Six of the top companies that apply the concept of
performance change management are Accenture, Google, General Electric, Eli Lilly and
Cargill. Deloitte being one of the top multinational firms operating in the financial industry is
also increasingly trying to employ methods of performance change management. Like any
other process involved with management of a system that goes through evolution, the
methods of managing and dealing with challenges related to the management of performance
of the employees are also changing and evolving. In this report we analyse and critically
evaluate the methods employed by Deloitte to better manage its employees and carry out
even more effective performance regulation.
2. Performance Management Strategies
Organisations involved with huge mass of people with each one of them having an
important role to play often apply different approaches and strategies to deal with the
situation of performance management (Chowdhary et al., 2014). Widely the firms apply five
different approaches of performance change management to manage the performance of
4

5PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
employees in relation to the existing goals and objectives of the firm. The five approaches are
enlisted as follows:
 Behavioural Approach- This method uses certain vertical scales that are dependent on
scales or anchors pre decided by employees at the managerial level. The employees
are ranked on these anchors on the basis of their performance. This is one of the
oldest used methods (Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015). The overall score based on
the anchors that the employees gain is maintained and recorded with managers which
help them to assess the performance of the employees in the long run.
 Attribute Approach – In this approach the employees are judged and assessed on the
basis of a few decided parameters like judgement of a situation, communication,
problem solving and many more such skills (Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015).
 Comparative Approach – In this approach the performance and the productivities of
different employees are measured and compared against one another as highest or
lowest in order to instil the spirit of competition and also ensure that the average level
of productivity is maintained at the desired level for the firm (Rosemann & vom
Brocke, 2015).
 Quality Approach- This approach helps the firm to cater to the services of the
customers by reducing the number of errors or problems in the services provided
(Rosemann & vom Brocke, 2015). This essentially includes evaluation of both the
performance of the individuals as well as the employees.
 Result Approach- This method is applied by firms when they want to measure the
extent to which the objectives of the firm are being met the employees (Rosemann &
vom Brocke, 2015). The performances of the employees are then monitored based on
which they receive feedbacks.
5

6PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Which of these will be applied by the firm and used to monitor the performance and
credibility of the employees depend on the needs, goals and suitability of these concepts to
the existing situation of the firm.
2.1 Deloitte
Deloitte as a firm has realised in recent years the impetus it needs to imply on the way
in which the performance of its employees are evaluated and managed (hbr.org, 2015). This
is so because the productivities of the employees were not in line with the changing
objectives of the firm. The firm is now going to reduce and completely remove the use of old
tools like 360 degree feedbacks, differentiated objectives and once a year review tools
(hbr.org, 2015). It is instead going to apply its focus on parameters of agility and flexibility,
speed, collection of reliable data, constant learning and evolution and being a perfect fit for
the organisation.
The firm has been using the concept of result approach for the performance
management of the workers by setting proper objectives at the beginning of every financial
year and after the completion of the project reviewing the performance of the employees and
then providing them with feedbacks (hbr.org, 2015). However, research conducted by the
firm over time has proven that managers would spend hours together in discussing how
efficient the outcomes of the process involved with the project were rather than on discussing
how each individual contributed to the process which is increasingly being carried out now.
The next approach being followed by Deloitte was that of the comparative approach wherein;
the employees were rated on the basis of their performance. However, on careful
investigation this method was proven to be inefficient as the strategy of rating depends on the
person who is rating the other. The type of ratings that the employee is receiving effectively
depends on the how strong or lenient the person rating is. In fact the ratings reveal more
6

7PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
about the person providing the ratings than the person whose performance is being rated
(hbr.org, 2015). This is exactly why the firm is now employing the technique of placing the
team leader in the shoes of the employee who is being rated and is being asked to evaluate
what he would do to improve the performance being delivered by the employee currently.
The team leaders were asked to answer effectively four questions which are enlisted below:
 Which employee in the team would he provide the highest amount of compensation
for his work if it were his money that he would have to distribute?
 Which team members would he keep in his team as constants given their level and
quality of performance?
 Which team member does he think is exposed to a low risk of low performance?
 Which is the team member who is already ready for a promotion?
These questions reduce the ambiguities related to the entire process of rating and also
help in generating and collecting data that can be used for the longer run (hbr.org, 2015). It
also improves the consistency of the system and helps in identifying the section of employees
who should be awarded and compensated or even promoted to higher levels of hierarchy.
This helps the firm in building a “performance snapshot”.
The third measure of change that Deloitte has introduced in the field of performance
change management is that of improving the already existing performance level of the
employees in a team. This aspect of fuelling the performance of the employee is done regular
checking conversations conducted by the team leads with each and every member of their
teams at least once a week. This maintains the frequency with which the performance is
managed. The frequency of these checking conversations being less than once a week can
cause ambiguity and vagueness in the performance management of the employees (hbr.org,
2015). These conversations are then used by the managers to help the employees to form a set
7

8PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
of strengths and weaknesses that they posses and these are in turn shared with and used by all
team members to enhance their performance capabilities in the context of productivity.
On the issue of transparency in the methods and techniques of evaluation of performance the
mangers of Deloitte find it significant and important to keep the evaluation and monitoring
process unknown to the employees as in that case the performance of the employees are sugar
coated and the real abilities and attributes are not brought to light which make it ambiguous
and difficult for the managers to monitor and assess the performance properly and accurately.
3. Comparison of Deloitte and Accenture Performance Management
Though most of the multinational companies are increasingly trying to employ newer
methods of evaluating and analysing the performance of the employees some companies still
follow the old and traditional and concepts and consider them to bet fit the need of the hour.
One such firm is Accenture where the old methods of performance management are still used
along with their evolution and adaptation to the changing objectives of the firm. This firm
still uses the concepts of rating the employers and once a year review of the performance of
the employees(accenture.com, 2018). It still uses the concepts of a 360 degree tool that
provides feedbacks to the employees once a year depending on the extent to which the
employees are able to reach the objectives prescribed for them. However, just like Deloitte
the firm also has introduced a few changes which align in the direction of continuous
evaluation of the progress and performance of the employees in which the team leaders are
required to schedule check meetings and one on one conversation with each team member so
that their performances and capacity utilisation are monitored and well maintained. However,
these conversations and meetings unlike Deloitte are not only in the form of formal
frameworks and schedules but can happen either formally or informally at any point in time
whether once or more than once a week or may even take place once in two weeks.
8

9PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
The most important difference in the performance management changes introduced by
the two firms lie in the space of Accenture providing and receiving help from P&G to cater to
the changing needs of the firm based on employee productivity and efficiency
(accenture.com, 2015). Being associated with the consulting, strategising and technological
sector, Accenture uses high level data and statistical systems for maintaining the records of
performance of the employees (accenture.com, 2015). This enhances the ability of the firm to
make well informed and accurate decision making in the field of employee performance
management (accenture.com, 2018). It also helps the firm to take faster and easier talent
decisions with lesser effort manually like Deloitte.
Unlike Deloitte where no risks involved with the employees are addressed or seen as a
matter of concern, Accenture employs high level of programs to monitor and mitigate risks
associated with employee performance and the takes steps to fuel the performance growth for
them (accenture.com, 2018).
In fact the firm uses the latest applications and programs to judge if the employees
being hired are the best fit for the firm or not. These applications and programs are in turn
innovated and improvised every quarter of the year. Accenture has even extended this service
to P&G so that it too can hire the right people for the right purpose at the right time
(accenture.com, 2015). All the approaches used by the firm are essentially based on the
quality and attribute approach as this makes it easier to both obtain and process data related to
the performance of the workers.
The firm has specifically focussed on the field of recognition and awards in providing
the employees the best ways of motivation and enthusiasm and has made sure that the team
leaders take full responsibility of the people working under them and that their personal goals
align with the goals of the team and the firm as a whole (accenture.com, 2015). The firm also
believes in keeping the process and measures of evaluation and monitoring of the
9

10PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
performance of the employees transparent and very honest unlike Deloitte. The firm believes
that even if the measures are opened up to the people and employees the results of the
assessments of their performances will not be biased as these are calculated completely on the
basis of data and models with attributes that are tangible and can be completely and precisely
measured unlike in case of Deloitte.
The process of self evaluation is one where the individual strengths and weaknesses
are used by a complete team to work together. However, in Accenture the method that is
followed after self evaluation is a little different where the strengths and weaknesses of the
individuals and the strengths and weaknesses of the team are plotted into one another in order
to achieve long run objectives of the firm as a whole and not just the team.
However, again one of the biggest similarities for the two firms lies in the area of
changing their idea of providing ratings to the employees. Instead they are increasingly using
methods and techniques that help in understanding the capability and power of the employees
both innovate new technologies and organise their work as well as the team’s work at the
same time instead of just working hard and climbing up the corporate ladder. The extent to
which the employees can promote globalisation and internationalisation is also becoming an
increasingly important attribute of measuring the extent of capability and productivity in
terms of performance.
Another important measure of performance that is now being considered is the ability
of the employees to work out of their comfort zones and push the boundaries of their
performance levels which were not considered to be of this much importance earlier and the
employee was just expected to meet his roles and responsibilities in the best possible way
(accenture.com, 2018).
10

11PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Conclusion (or Conclusion and Recommendations)
Thus to conclude it can be asserted that in the wake of changing demand patterns and
ongoing trends in the industry, each firm needs to change its objectives based on which the
method of performance is changed or monitored. Deloitte as a firm that believes in enhancing
the quality of life of its employees and instilling a sense of accountability has also changed
the method through which the performance of the employees is monitored and evaluated. The
concepts of ratings have been replaced by weekly conversations and sessions of employees
with team leads that help them to perform individual development assessment and align their
goals and objectives with those of the team. The firm also is applying the strategy or
providing feedbacks such that the individuals are able to perform outside their comfort zone
and increase the scope and utilization of capabilities. The firm also believes in fuelling the
performance of the employees by extending support on the basis of training and development
programmes so that their skill sets are enhanced and increased. The firm also believes in
keeping the process and parameters of evaluation hidden and a secret as it could lead to
biased outcomes. Accenture is another firm that is also focussing on changing the role of
feedbacks and sessions held by managers instead of ratings. However, this firm follows a way
more data and applications oriented approach and so believes in the concept of transparency
unlike Deloitte. Firms should increasingly appoint these rules and regulations and forms of
performance management instead of following the old techniques that do not apply to the
changed objectives and demand patterns of the customers.
11

12PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Reference List
(accenture.com, 2018) Available online at:
https://www.accenture.com/in-en/company-accenture-ceo-performance-review
Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2018). Employee engagement through effective
performance management: A practical guide for managers. Routledge.
Buckingham, M., & Goodall, A. (2015). Reinventing performance
management. Harvard Business Review, 93(4), 40-50.
Chowdhary, P.R., Pinel, F.A., Palpanas, T. and Chen, S.K., International Business
Machines Corp, 2014. System and method for model-driven dashboard for business
performance management. U.S. Patent 8,843,883.
Rosemann, M., & vom Brocke, J. (2015). The six core elements of business process
management. In Handbook on business process management 1 (pp. 105-122). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
accenture.com (2015) Available online at:
https://www.accenture.com/t20150523T042743__w__/fi-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/
Conversion-Assets/DotCom/Documents/Global/PDF/Industries_2/Accenture-Procter-
Gamble-Digitizes-Talent-Management-Processes-Design-Solutions.pdf
(hbr.org, 2015)Available online at: https://hbr.org/2015/04/reinventing-performance-
management
12