Group 7 - HR - Project
Group 7 - HR - Project
Group 7 - HR - Project
Comparative Analysis of
Performance Management System
Of Google and Tata Motors
Prepared by:
2
Acknowledgement
2
Performance Management System:
2
relationship management with clients. Generally, feedback is received anonymously
which are then considered for appraisal.
5. Employee Self-Assessment
This method is very unpopular among employees since it is difficult to actually rate one’s
own self. The self-assessment sheet is compared the manager’s assessment of the
employee and the differences / gaps are then discussed.
2
Tata Motors:
VISION: To be the world class corporate constantly furthering the interest of all stakeholder
HR VISION: Lead and Facilitate continuous change towards organizational excellence; create a
learning and vibrant organization with high sense of pride amongst its members
APPRAISAL:
New Appraisal System based on KRAs & Targets·
Review of Targets at regular Intervals
People Development an important KRA
REWARD:
Promotions based on Performance
Productivity & Profit-linked Incentive Schemes·
Training including Long-term Term
CAREER DESIGN:
Performance & Potential Based Appraisals
FTSS: Fast Track Option for High performers: 10-12 Yr leap
Promotions after Managers Vacancy based
Interviews for promotions above Managers
Selection of Supervisors: – Performance / Attendance / Discipline record
2
Job rotation – including inter functional
Appraisal System:
Annual Appraisal system (Apr – Mar)
Feedback is shared half yearly
Necessary steps for employees who deviate
Yearly Salary revision
Annual promotions (as applicable) / designation hikes
6 - 8 % of the compensation is variable pay
Appraisal System
1. Till 2011: The system was known as Performance Measurement System (PMS) and
was based on traditional performance management techniques.
2. 2012 – 2017: Migration to a new system for Performance Management was done and the
system was called as Performance Appraisal & Coaching Tool or PACT in short. This
system of performance evaluation focussed primarily on the achievement if business
goals by the employee. As per this system there was a necessity to stick to the bell curve
while evaluating the employees. Also, as per this system the performance incentives or
annual bonuses was linked only to the grade that was being achieved as against the
exact performance percentage achieved in the evaluation by the employee.
3. From 2018 onwards: Currently the system being used for performance management is
called as LOOP and it focuses on the contemporary techniques to achieve the best
employee productivity. In this system of performance evaluation, equal weightage was
given to business goals as well as behavioural goals like customer satisfaction, agility,
motivation, team work, etc. As per this system there is no explicit necessity to stick to the
2
bell curve while evaluating the employees, however, as has been seen in recent times
there may be some intrinsic factors that lead to evaluations that may at times still
resemble a bell curve. Also, another point of difference was that to focus more on
employee motivation the performance incentives or annual bonuses was linked not just
to the grade that was achieved but also the exact performance percentage achieved in
the evaluation by the employee.
LOOP
Goal Setting: At the start of the year
Mid-Year Review: In Mid-Year. Also, option is available to change the goals during this
time.
End Term Review: At the end of the year:
Rating is done both by the employees (self-rating) as well as the reporting managers
(appraiser). The managers rating is in the region of 70% to 150%
The combination of both these scores are converted in percentage terms to arrive at the
overall annual performance rating for the employee:
o 125 – 150 % Grade A (Far Exceeds Goals)
o 110 – 125 % Grade B (Exceeds Goals)
o 95 – 110 % Grade C+ (Expectations met)
o 70 – 95 % Grade C (Satisfactory)
o Less than 70% Grade D (Needs improvement)
Employees getting a D rating is given a target of 3 Months to improve based on a
development plan. However, if the same is not achieved some of the steps outlined
below may be initiated:
o Reallocation / Transfer to an area that better matches the skill set of the particular
employee
o Promotions may be put on hold in extreme cases
Another USP of the LOOP system of performance evaluation is the closure of the loop.
After the performance rating the acceptance of the employee is required to close the
loop. In case the employee is not satisfied with the rating then the company may arrange
a meeting with the reporting manager as well as the HR to better explain the situation
and highlight the improvement areas.
2
Google:
Some facts in brief about the company:
Founded in 1998 by Sergey Brin and Larry Page
Subsidiary of the holding company Alphabet Inc.
More than 70 percent of worldwide online search requests are handled by Google
Its headquarters are in Mountain View, California
Numerous products across the hardware and software domain
Valued at more than 1 Trillion USD
The HR practices at Google have become the industry benchmark and it is quite obvious that
even smaller, less resourceful companies can greatly benefit from using Google as a starting
point for their own practices, and then iterating on that based on the specific requirements.
2
Googlegeist engagement survey: this spans much more than just the regular
engagement axes, but measures basically everything that’s is necessary.
Annual Upward Feedback Survey: a feedback review (similar to 360 degree review)
where only the supervisors are reviewed by their direct subordinates, and it is based on
Google’s Project Oxygen
OKRs, or objectives and key-results which is similar but not the same as Management-
by-Objectives
Meritocracy, or compensating people unequally based on performance: This is done
through bonuses, equity stock options, grants and prizes for good performance reviews
Performance Reviews
Google’s annual performance review cycle is consists of two parts: a “preview”, at the end of the
first semester, and a complete end review, that usually happens between the months of October
and November, and which happens simultaneously with the company’s 360-degree feedback
collection process.
Managers take two main things under consideration when evaluating their employees’
performance ratings: results attained, which is basically what the employee accomplished, and
behaviours, or how the employee had managed to attain the result. The employee starts with a
self-assessment, which is followed by peer-reviews, which are only visible to managers
(reviewees may have access only to the anonymized content of peer reviews).
On the review side, Google employees are asked to review each other, and their direct reports,
according to the following criteria:
Googleyness
This is basically a measure whether the employee’s values are in line with that of
Google’s.
This forms the most important component of the “how” axis.
Problem solving
This is basically a measure of the Analytical skills of the employee that are applied to
work situations to achieve the desired results
2
Thought leadership
This is basically a measure of how much an employee is seen as a benchmark for a
given niche of expertise. As Google grows in size, these niches may tend to become
smaller, however, Google still wants employees that are go-to resources for specific
themes, training colleagues on tech-talks, training customers, and producing high-quality
content.
Presence
Presence is the ability of the employee to make himself/herself heard in an increasingly
large organization, and is therefore intimately related to emerging leadership.
Self-Evaluation
First step in the performance review
Employee evaluates himself in 5 grades based on the criteria mentioned above. These
grades range from “never demonstrates” to “always demonstrates”
The employees are encouraged to share examples that support these grades
Highlights main accomplishments of last cycle (in a text field limited to 512 characters).
These accomplishments will appear to 360 degree reviewers (peers) who are asked to
reviewee’s impact on the results
360-degree Feedback
Gives managers holistic picture of direct reports and avoids manager biases
Starts with a back-and-forth between employee and manager
Employee suggested shortlist of peer reviewers discussed and validated with the
manager
Peers expected to give assessments in three areas: strengths, weaknesses and rating
on the five criteria discussed above, as well as commenting on the reviewee’s
contribution to specific projects.
2
Simplification of Ratings: The open ended fields (positives and negatives) has been
observed to simplify and reduced the time spent on this step by more than 25%, while
improving the share of participants who perceived it as useful from 49% to 75%.
Calibration
After data collection from self-evaluation and peer evaluation and once the results have been
understood the managers draft a rating for the employees based on the scale shown below:
Needs improvement
Consistently meets expectations
Exceeds expectations
Strongly exceeds expectations
Superb
After the managers have drafted the rating they are then subsequently calibrated.
2
Outputs
Calibration meetings output employee’s performance rating for the review cycle.
After the feedback has been closed the managers go on to hold two meetings:
Feedback given to employee by manager taking into account both manager’s and peer’s
view points
The second meeting is where Compensation & Promotion decisions communicated
However, the Feedback meeting and Compensation meeting at least 1 month apart from each
other for quality purposes:
Google understands that a compensation-focused employee is no good a listener of feedback,
whether compensation expectations were not met, met, or exceeded. This is because the
employees generally focus on the extrinsic reward – a raise, higher rating – and learning shuts
down, defeating the purpose of the evaluation. Hence at Google, pay and feedback]
conversations at the same time.
2
Comparative Analysis
Monthly performance
Conversation & Feedback Half yearly feedback
check-ins
As we can see that even though both Tata Motors and Google are huge companies the
performance management system being employed at Google is more comprehensive and may
as a result lead to better employee motivation and results.
One of the important aspects to note here is the calibration process that is being employed at
Google may lead to the reduction of bias to a greater extent and hence ensure more accurate
and fairer reviews.