Question

The "performance snapshot" system developed by Deloitte—that revolved around the four statements mentioned earlier—was the result of a long process of retooling. The old system had many elements that are common in large firms. Specific objectives were set at the highest levels of the company at the beginning of each year and were "cascaded" down to lower levels. As projects were finished, employees were rated on the degree to which their performance met those objectives. Those ratings were then the subject of discussion at end-of-year "consensus meetings," where employees were given an overall performance score for the year. One of the voices in those consensus meetings was an employee-assigned "counselor" who represented the employee to encourage an accurate and unbiased accounting.

Unfortunately, 58 percent of the Deloitte executives surveyed felt like the system did not increase employee engagement levels. More specifically, the company felt that the old system came up short on some important dimensions. First, the specific objectives that were set at the beginning of the year sometimes became outdated and less pivotal as the year moved on, robbing the system of a certain agility. Moreover, the once-a-year conversation was too infrequent to give employees the feedback they needed, when they needed it. Most importantly, though, Deloitte estimated that it spent 2 million hours a year on the cascading objectives, project ratings, consensus meetings, and conversations about the scores and the system. As Ashley Goodall summarized, "We wondered if we could somehow shift our investment of time from talking to ourselves about ratings to talking to our people about their performance and careers—from a focus on the past to a focus on the future."

Deloitte also wanted "performance snapshot" statements that were more behavioral than descriptive. That is, the company wanted managers to rate what they themselves would actually do—in terms of choosing a person for their team on giving them the highest possible raise rather than rating the skills, qualities, or, characteristics of the person. Deloitte did a thorough review of scientific research on performance evaluations and felt that such behavioral statements could reduce what's called "idiosyncratic rater effects"—biases on the part of a boss that can inject noise into ratings. That sort of noise can rob systems of the instrumentality needed to foster high levels of engagement. As she reflects on Deloittc's system, Goodall is encouraged while pointing to one remaining question: transparency. On the one hand,knowing their performance snapshot numbers can trigger conversations between employees and their leaders, while also allowing progress to be tracked over time. On the other hand, being forced to share performance snapshots with employees could cause leaders to "sugarcoat" them. For now. Deloitte encourages employees to focus on the check-ins with their leader and their annual compensation decision. The snapshots remain "for leader eyes only."

Disccussion

1. Summary the Case study above with your own words.

Answer 1

Solution:-

The Summary of this case study is given below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "Performance snapshot" system developed by Deloitte to measure the performance of employees and increase the employee engagement. Starrtng the year objectives are were set at the highest levels and at the end of the year employee rated by the management regarding the project objectives. Consensus meetings are arranged to discuss the performance of employees in the current year and enforces the accurate and unbiased accounting of employee performance.

But According an independent survey report 58 percent of the Deloitte executives felt like the system did not increase employee engagement levels, as during the year some objectives are outdated and low frequency of employee communication. No matter Company invest much time on taking review, monitor performance, project ratings, scoring, and meetings, but there is low degree of transparency because low engagement of employees with management, a manager who resposible for performance rating can be biased. So it is not worthy to rate youself but discuss about your performance to other people.

If there is transparency, means performance performance snapshots of employees is discussed with them. So this type of discussion will increase the degree of engagement of employee to leader. So this cause an upgrade in performance and there will be frequent communication and engagement of employees to thier management. And Employees can individually discuss about his performance snapshots to the leader.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------