ABOUT NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.

A world wide leader in hardware,software & networking services.

Has Used more than 50 different systems to measure performance within the company.

ISSUES Company has no recognition program to

reward achievers Performance problems were not

addressed Tough pressure from competitors was

increasing the costs of managing human performance ineffectively.

Many Employees didn’t receive performance review

5 % received low category of rating.

CHANGE As quality initiatives driving changes in

several business areas, CO. Decided to improve people quality

too.

By ensuring the ability to meet organizational goals by linking with employees goals.

INITIATIVES CEO announced forced distribution

performance management system. In which employees are classified in

following categories: Ratings 1,2 & 3.

1 for top 20% performers2 for middle 70% of performers3 for bottom 10% performers

Performance pie chart

top achievers

medum per-formers

bottom per-formers

NEW GOALS OF HR TEAM A global cross-divisional HR team was

set up to implement new performance system.

The program was rolled out as year round people management

to focus on employee development To raise performance of all employees, To identify and retain top talent To improve performance of low

performers

CORRECTIVE MEASURES.. The new team encouraged the senior

team to stop development and use of any other performance system

& explained need for standardisation of performance management across divisions.

Finally the team promoted the new program by involving employees in training of talent management

& assessed any unaddressed needs in the new system.

MANAGEMENT CYCLE The org has the following process:

Goal cascading & team buildingPerformance planningDevelopment planningOngoing Discussion between employees &

managersAnnual performance summary

CHANGES AFTER NEW PERFORMANCE MNGMNT SYTEM Employee received rating 3 was given time to

improve performance while not received additional benefits.

If performance does not improve they can leave co. with a severance package or again undergo performance improvement plan

If performance not improved after 2nd period(chance) ,they were terminated without severance package.

Where high performers receiving rating 1 are given extra development oportunities apart of monetary benefits like stock options & bonuses to retain them.

Individuals with rating 2 receive average to high salary increase without stock option/bonuses.

Hr centres of company continue to ensure that employee understand that company still rewards good performance.

Looking into future, they have plans to correct any unproductive practices through continue checks with stakeholders to ensure performance management is serving its intended purpose.

Forced ranking is a controversial workforce management tool that uses intense yearly evaluations to identify a company's best and worst performing employees, using person-to-person comparisons.

In theory, each ranking will improve the quality of the workforce. Managers rank workers into three categories: The top 20 percent are the "A" players, the people who

will lead the future of the company. They're given raises, stock options, and training.

The middle 70 percent are the "B" players, steady-eddies who are given smaller raises and encouraged to improve.

The bottom 10 percent are the "C" players, who contribute the least and may be meeting expectations but are simply "good" on a team of "greats." They're given no raises or bonuses and are either offered training, asked if they'd be happier elsewhere, or fired.

SIMILAR FOLLOWING

Q.2.CONSIDER NETWORK’S ATTEMPT TO FOLLOW AN IDEAL SYSTEM WHICH WE DISCUSSED

Q.4.SIDE EFFECTS OF FORCED SYSTEM Forced ranking has its detractors. This technique of

forcing managers to delineate performance has been called brutal and Darwinian . One common criticism is that it pits associates against each other, instead of fostering a collaborative work environment. On those occasions when managers lead truly high-performing teams, someone still must be ranked low, despite meeting performance plan goals. To replace that person with an unknown is expensive. Ed Lawler, author or Treat People Right, contends forced ranking creates a dysfunctional and hyper-competitive workplace. Common, too, is the complaint of a demoralized staff and a mistrust of leadership. Discrimination lawsuits are another problem, where defensible, fair, and consistent performance appraisal methods and processes were not in existence.

ADVANTAGES OF THE NETWORK’S NEW SYSTEM Forced ranking became all the rage during

the tenure of former General Electric CEO Jack Welch. Each year, 10 percent of GE managers are assigned the bottom grade, and if they don't improve they are asked to leave the company. When GE launched forced ranking and the company's profits started to soar, a number of high-profile companies adopted the GE model of forced ranking, among them Pepsico, Conoco, and notoriously, Enron. Today, as many as 20 percent of Fortune 500 companies now apply forced ranking.

THANK YOU

performance management at network solutions, inc

Business