7/27/2019 Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 4 issue 2 2011 [doi 10.1111_j.1754-9434.2011.01323.x] STEVEN

1/2

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4(2011), 188189.Copyright 2011 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/11

Technology Is Transforming the

Nature of Performance Management

STEVEN T. HUNT

SuccessFactors, Inc.

As someone who has assisted with thedesign and implementation of hundreds of

performance management systems, I readthe article by Pulakos and OLeary (2011)with considerable interest. One major reac-tion I had is the degree to which the authorsoverlooked the massive impact cloud com-puting technology has on the effective-ness of performance management processes(Levensaler & Laurano, 2010).

Discussing performance managementwithout addressing how cloud computingtechnology is changing the process is akin to

discussing the use of standardized selectionassessments without mentioning online test-ing. In 1990, one could have made a strongargument that the operational impracti-calities of paper-and-pencil testing vastlyoutweighed the benefits of using psycho-metrically validated assessments for hiring.But the advent of Internet staffing meth-ods has completely changed this discussion.The same thing has happened over the past5 years in the world of performance man-agement.

Performance management is undergoinga significant shift from fixed paper-and-pencil or highly static in-house enterprisetechnology platforms to more dynamiconline systems. These online systems makeonce clumsy processes much more efficient,flexible, and easy to use. This is perhaps

Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to Steven T. Hunt.E-mail: shunt@successfactors.com

Address: SuccessFactors, Inc., 16958 Richen ParkCircle, Sherwood, OR 97140

most apparent in the area of goal cascad-ing. The authors claim that creating the

cascade itself is extremely challenging oper-ationally and we do not recommend thatcascaded goals be implemented in the vastmajority of organizations. I might haveagreed with these statements 5 years agowhen goal cascading technology had notbeen fully developed. But goal cascadingtechnology has completely changed thesituation. We have seen companies suc-cessfully implement goal cascading acrossmore than 10,000 employees around the

globe in less than 2 months. Given whatwe know about the power goals have forincreasing employee performance (Latham,2004), the organizational benefits associ-ated with implementing this type of processcan probably be considered self-evident.Similar examples exist regarding the impacttechnology is having on processes usedfor performance evaluation and employeefeedback.

Performance management technologyhas also enabled companies to imple-ment several of Pulakos and OLearysrecommendations. For example, compa-nies are increasingly deploying technology-enabled performance management toolsthat provide simple job aids to managersto encourage them to engage in effectiveperformance management behaviors on anongoing basis. Three strategies mentionedby the authorsframe of reference training,

storing high-quality goals in a searchabledatabase, and evaluating employees on dif-ficulty and complexityare currently being

188

7/27/2019 Industrial and Organizational Psychology Volume 4 issue 2 2011 [doi 10.1111_j.1754-9434.2011.01323.x] STEVEN

2/2

Impact of technology 189

deployed through the use of performancemanagement technology.

Another benefit of performance manage-ment technology is that it allows companiesto evaluate whether managers are car-rying out basic management tasks, suchas setting employee goals and providingemployee feedback. These systems enablecompanies to measure if managers are per-forming what Pulakos and OLeary call therole of a manager. These measures arecritical for rewarding effective manage-rial behavior, making managers account-able for effective behavior. As one clienttold me, until my company implemented[a technology-enabled performance man-

agement process], we were not able tomeasure whether managers were eventalking to their employees about perfor-mance, regardless of whether they weredoing it effectively. When appropriatelydesigned, technology-enabled performancemanagement processes allow companies toincrease workforce productivity by creat-ing methods that support, evaluate, andultimately improve manager performanceon fundamental tasks, such as setting

goals, evaluating performance, providingeffective feedback, and rewarding andholding employees accountable for meetingperformance expectation.

I appreciate Pulakos and OLearys desireto call attention to issues that limit the valueof performance management. But their arti-cle fails to consider the critical role thatperformance management technology isplaying in addressing many of these issues.Innovations in performance managementtechnology do not address all the prob-lems that plague performance managementmethods, but they have had a major impacton many of the concerns raised by Pulakosand OLeary.

References

Latham, G. P. (2004). The motivational benefits ofgoal-setting. Academy of Management Executive,18, 126 129.

Levensaler, L., & Laurano, M. (2010). Talent manage-ment systems 2010: Market realities, implemen-tation experiences, and solution provider profile.Oakland, CA: Bersin.

Pulakos, E. D., & OLeary, R. S. (2011). Why is perfor-mance management broken? Industrialand Organi-zational Psychology: Perspectives on Science andPractice, 4, 146 164.