Syndicate 1 :

Reinventing
1. Julyestra Vidha Thaashaar (29121274)
2. Muhammad Sani Muharam (29121293)
3. Nabila Prajnaparamita Leman(29121159)

Performance 4. Sendika Panji Anom

5. Tembang Florian Falah
(29121262)
(29121062)

Management PKM BLEMBA 65

School of Business and Management
Institut Teknologi Bandung
 In a public survey conducted by Deloitte, more than half
the executive questioned (58%) believe that their current
performance management approach drives neither
employee engagement nor high performance. The
existing performance appraisal systems (cascading
objectives, once-a-year review, 360-degree-feedback
Executive tools) are no longer relevant to the business nature
Summary nowadays. Thus, Deloitte will move from the conventional
(Case in Brief) performance appraisal system to a new approach
separates compensation decisions from day-to-day
performance management, produces better insight
through quarterly or per-project “performance
snapshots,” and relies on weekly check-ins with managers
to keep performance on course. However, as the
breakthrough performance appraisal system
implemented, Deloitte faced the issue that must be
solved next : fairness.
 The issues of implementing the
Counting and the Case existing performance appraisal:
• Once-a-year goals are too “batched” for a
real-time world.
• Conversations about year-end ratings are
generally less valuable than conversations
for Change

conducted in the moment about actual

performance.
• Time Consuming: Completing the forms,
holding the meetings, and creating the
ratings consumed close to 2 million hours
a year.
The Science of Ratings
Assessing someone’s skills produces inconsistent data.
The most comprehensive research on what ratings actually measure was conducted by Michael Mount, Steven
Scullen, and Maynard Goff and published in the Journal of Applied Psychology in 2000.

in How People Evaluate Others in Organizations,

edited by Manuel London:
“Although it is implicitly assumed that the
ratings measure the performance of the ratee,
most of what is being measured by the ratings is 4,492 managers were rated on certain
the unique rating tendencies of the rater. Thus
performance dimensions by two bosses,
ratings reveal more about the rater than they
Ratings do about the ratee.” two peers, and two subordinates

We wanted to understand 62% of the variance in the

performance at the individual level,
and we knew that the person in the best
position to judge it was the
immediate team leader.
But how could we capture a team
leader’s view of performance without
running afoul of what the researchers
termed “idiosyncratic rater effects”?
In effect, we are asking
our team leaders what ratings could be accounted for by
they would do with each individual raters’ peculiarities of
team member rather than perception.
what they think of that
individual.
Putting Ourselves Under the Microscope
The defining characteristic of the very best teams at Deloitte is that they are strengths oriented.
Gallup performed a multiyear examination of high-performing teams: It found at the beginning of the study that
almost all the variation between high- and lower-performing teams was explained by a very small group of items.

Three items correlated best with high

performance for a team:
1. My coworkers are committed to doing
quality work; identified 60
high-performing
2. The mission of our company inspires me;
3. I have the chance to use my strengths every teams, which involved 1,287
Under the
Microscope
day. employees and represented all parts of the
organization. For the control group, They
All this evidence helped bring into focus the
problem they were trying to solve with the
chose a representative sample of
new design.
1. They wanted to spend more time
1,954 employees.
helping our people use their To measure the conditions within a team, They
strengths; With this in
2. They wanted a quick way to collect employed a six-item survey.
reliable and differentiated mind, we set to
performance data. work.
 Radical Redesign
Deloitte need a a subtle shift in their approach to solved the
idiosyncratic rater and need to streamline their traditional process of
evaluation

PERFORMANCE INTELLIGENCE

Executives in one large practice area at Deloitte called up data from project
managers to consider important talent-related decisions and then see the
his or her performance snapshots
 PERFORMANCE INTELLIGENCE

This view plotted all the Project managers agreed with two
statements: “I would always want this person
on my team” (y axis) and “I would give this person the
highest possible compensation” (x axis). The axes are the
same for the other three screens.
Next the data was filtered to look
only at individuals at a given job
level. (LEVEL 4)
 PERFORMANCE INTELLIGENCE
This view was filtered to show individuals whose team
leaders responded “yes” to the statement “This person is
ready for promotion today.”
This view was filtered to show individuals whose
team leaders responded
“yes” to the statement “This person is at risk of low
performance.” As the upper right of this screen
shows, even high performers can slip up and it’s
important that the organization help them recover.
PERFORMANCE SNAPSHOTS
To see performance at the individual level, then, Management will ask team leaders not
about the skills of each team member but about their own future actions with respect to
that person.
There are 4 Future Focused Statement that a leader respond to each team members for
produce a rich stream of information for leaders discussions of what they, in turn, will do
whether it’s a question of succession planning, development paths, or performance-
pattern analysis.
1. Given what I know of this person’s performance, and if it were my money, I would award
this person the highest possible compensation increase and bonus [measures overall
performance and unique value to the organization on a five-point scale from “strongly
agree” to“strongly disagree”].
2. Given what I know of this person’s performance, I would always want him or her on my
team [five-point scale].
3. This person is at risk for low performance [identifies problems that might harm the
customer or the team on a yes-or-no basis]
4. This person is ready for promotion today [measures potential on a yes-or-no basis].
The Third Objective (Fuel Performance)
Deloitte decide to establish weekly check-ins, the weekly check-ins is weekly conversation
across the organization, leaders use them to clarify what expected, what great work looks
like and how each person can excel. The check-ins not considered additional work, but also
to see: what expectations, review priorities, comment on work, provide coaching and
information.
Why the check-ins do in weekly?
Frequency is matters, so that priorities don’t became vague and merely aspirational, and
the coaching can stay focused on near term, not in past performance.
Jump-starting the discussion
Deloitte shows the correlation between the frequency of conversations and the
engagement of teams members. Leaders have may demands on their time, team members
are responsible for initiating the check-ins. To help the conversation rollings, deloitte has
created a self-assessment tool, that allow employees to explore their strengths and
presented to their teammates, their leaders and the rest of the organization.
Thank You