Porter Novelli Performance Management at Porter Novelli

Porter Novelli

Performance Management at Porter Novelli

For Porter Novelli, even as the company advanced its objectives and improved its market orientation, its Human Resource strategy appeared to lag behind. It is for this reason that the firm began to investigate ways of linking its Human Resource orientation with its overall business strategy. Among the key objectives within the scope of the proposed strategic improvement would be more effective performance management, clearer opportunities for professional development and a shift toward client-centered HR strategies.

Leadership Roles:

At the center of Porter Novelli's change process would be the use of a Leadership Pipeline model. This would be constructed to enable Porter Novelli the ability to assign meaningful leadership roles at every level. As this relates to performance management, the approach would be aimed at created tiered levels of accountability. Leadership roles would be especially important in effecting change through the three level system around which the Leadership Pipeline is designed. The first level calls for a clear definition of leadership duties at different levels of the organization to the end of strengthening the stake and sense of empowerment experienced by talent throughout Porter Novelli. Accompanying this level would be the improvement of performance incentives and sufficient training and support to the end of achieving these incentives. According to the text by Goldsmith & Carter (2009), "pipeline-based definitions of senior roles would more explicitly define management and leadership accountabilities for reinforcement with coaching, performance management, and revised incentive compensation plans." (p. 229)

This denotes that it is incumbent upon senior leaders at Porter Novelli to ensure that proper performance management oversight is provided. Performance assessments of leaders are more closely staked to the performance of their subordinates. This contributed directly to pursuit of the second level of implementation. This would be the construction of a completely overhauled performance management approach. Previously, the case history reports, Porter Novelli had operated on a competency-based performance management system that was largely unused in the real-world setting. Its definitions proved static, its evaluation process complex and the training support available for it highly limited.

By contrast to the competency-based approach, the strategies for performance management in the new system would work according to both goal-setting and results-oriented approaches. In order to hone these new foci, the role of leaders had to be inserted more directly into performance management. The case history would denote the need to "align with Leadership Pipeline principles; provide both specificity and flexibility in defining job requirements and personal accountabilities; and be as easy to understand and use as possible, for people new to both goal-setting-based performance management as well as the results-oriented approach." (p. 236)

The third level of the Leadership Pipeline implementation would append to the performance management framework, overhauling the processes of recruitment, training and pronunciation of performance duties. Streamlining, consistency and reliability would be sought in this part of the process, all stemming from the direct contribution of newly accountable senior leaders.

Five Point Criteria:

The talent management strategy put forth by key decision-makers at Porter Novelli provides a framework for gathering data on performance and evaluating said data. According to Goldsmith & Carter, certain contribution dimensions were identified as being critical to assessing the "source code" utilized for performance appraisal, assessment selection, and career development applications. (p. 233) These contribution dimensions serve as criteria for use in evaluating the success of the Leadership Pipeline implementation. According to Goldsmith & Carter, the five point criteria would include Client Results, Leadership Results, Management Results, Relationship Results and Innovation Results.

This results-based approach would allow for a far more quantitative assessment of individual, departmental and organizational performance, which would consequently provide for more accurate evaluation of how talent is optimized.

Critique Talent Management Strategy:

One drawback to the approach implemented by Porter Novelli is the degree to which its higher degrees of accountability might contribute to a sense of being micro-managed amongst personnel. Indeed, there was considerable effort in the process of improving performance management to redress the reality that previous employee rating systems did not sufficiently provide accountability for personal reasons. Accordingly, Goldsmith & Carter note of the original rating system that it was often vulnerable to 'fluffing,' where managers provided adequate ratings for sub-par employees to avoid demotivating them.

Unfortunately, there is a risk that some degree of resistance amongst personnel could arise from a sudden shift toward highly evaluative management orientation. This is particularly true given the firm's historical absence of any such standards. Certainly, this concern may be underscored by the eventuality of higher levels of employee turnover in the two years succeeding basic implementation of the Leadership Pipeline strategy.

An alternative approach, or at least a strategy designed to offset this consequence, would be focused recruitment as well as the selection of project implementation champions amongst personnel who are inherently social leaders within the organizational culture. Porter Novelli should use their social nfluence to promote greater socialization and improve familial outreach, thus offsetting the impression that the Leadership Pipeline is punitive in nature.