Objections to a Performance Management System, and Responses

Objections to a Performance Management System, and Responses

1. The costs outweigh the benefits. What will we find that we didn't already know?

What is the cost of not proving your value? Our competitors will prove theirs.

Today, our customers expect us to show evidence of progress. They have been through the performance management training too -- and the law (GPRA) requires it.

Web sites can enable and automate much of the work. This is a new method that is easy and inexpensive to implement, relative to the tools we had a few years ago.

Performance measurement has been demonstrated to be a 'best business practice' in terms of improving the bottom line in all kinds of companies (e.g. Motorola, Mobil, Cigna, the Coast Guard, Minn. Dept. of Revenue, the City of Charlotte (NC), Veterans Admin., Rockwater Energy, FMC, a bank, and an insurance company.)

2. But some tasks will be labor intensive: metrics definition, software development, data collection.

It's true that defining metrics is time consuming and has to be done by managers in their respective mission units. But once they are defined, they won't change very often. And some of the metrics are generic across all units, such as cycle time, customer satisfaction, employee attitudes, etc. Also, software tools are available to assist in this task.

Software development efforts should be kept to a minimum by using COTS products to the maximum. There are now companies that specialize in this kind of product, but most agencies can probably just leverage the existing financial data warehouse to support this system.

Data collection will be supported in many cases by using web-based forms. Manual work such as collecting customer data, telephone interviews, etc. can be supported by broadening the work of the existing 'financial assistants' to non-financial metrics.

3. We have only limited control over results. Why should we be held accountable for things we can't control?

With our strategic initiative of customer service, we must take responsibility for our mission effectiveness; we have to improve customer relationships; there is no alternative. Our customers will understand our limitations if they are in a close partnership with us.

4. The results will be used against us.

The results can also be used for us. What has been hurting us more is not having any results to show.

What better way to gain resources from the sponsor than to clearly show them the consequences of the present situation.

We can't see our own blind spots. We need someone else to point them out to us. The measurements add visibility, even if it is painful.

If we excel, it is NOT generally true that successful organizations lose budget.

5. Management will misuse or misinterpret the results. The process will be gamed.

That's why we need a balanced mix of several measures. Inspections such as Baldrige assessments are done by a variety of dedicated people across the organization. They want to do a good, honest job.

The measurements will be validated by an independent IG team or third party.

It should be emphasized to everyone that the main purpose of the balanced scorecard is not individual performance, but collective organizational performance. (Another separate system should be used for individual performance evaluations.) Therefore, results at the lower levels can be aggregated in such a way that individual employee performance is not reported out. This will eliminate a source of fear that will lead to gaming or failure to produce the data.

6. They will score us by inappropriate or unfair standards.

We get to define our own metrics, at least the ones that are pertinent to each mission. That's the only way to define OUR mission effectiveness. And the other metrics, like cycle time and customer satisfaction, are generic across all organizations.

7. Too much complexity: There are numerous systems and assessment criteria; how will we combine them all? (ISO 9001, ISO 14000, Baldrige, ABC, EVA, CMM, Balanced Scorecard, strategic initiatives).

I don't think it is necessary to make such a complex system. What is needed is a minimum basic set of measurements across various business perspectives and aligned to our strategic plan, as the balanced scorecard prescribes. We do need to develop ISO certifications when appropriate, but the metrics for them could be simple, like 'percentage coverage' and 'cycle time'.

After all, the purpose of the system is to clarify our situation for senior managers, not to make it more complex.

8. It's too big and ambitious and expensive to deploy a performance measurement system in this entire organization. We can't afford such large-scale efforts.

Agreed. It should not be deployed across the organization all at once. Rather, it should start small, in a business unit, and be allowed to develop incrementally. Experience will be gained before company-wide deployment is considered. This reduces cost, risk, and disruption.