For any company hoping to gain a lasting competitive advantage, performance management is undoubtedly an indispensable key task. However, it should be noted that performance management is not a system that can operate independently of the day-to-day operations of the business. Only within an environment and culture suited for performance management can it truly integrate into the very fabric of a company and become an essential "system." If adaptability and acceptability are not considered—without doing a "skin test"—and the performance management system is forcibly embedded or even "injected" into the operational framework of the company, then this performance management system may instead cause significant harm to the daily operations of the enterprise, resulting in "rejection reactions."
Based on my practical research and corporate management consulting experience, before implementing performance management, a company needs to prepare in many ways, which mainly manifests in two aspects: hardware preparation and software preparation. Hardware preparation primarily refers to whether the organizational structure is reasonable, whether job analysis and design are standardized, whether processes and responsibilities are clearly defined, and even includes having a clear strategy and a shared vision acknowledged by employees. The reason hardware is important is that if there are issues in these areas, it becomes difficult to clarify responsibility for poor performance. Everyone may feel they have no control over the performance outcomes. In such a situation, even if the performance evaluation is meticulous and scientific, and the indicators are comprehensive, the final results will not be acceptable.
On the software side, it mainly involves two core contents. First, whether the company's leaders and managers genuinely pay attention to performance and whether an atmosphere valuing performance has been established, thus laying the foundation for shaping a performance culture in terms of thinking and public opinion. Second, whether middle-level managers can truly assume their managerial roles, especially whether they have a clear understanding of their human resource management responsibilities. Even with sound hardware facilities, to ensure the smooth introduction of the performance management system, the company must also prepare in the aforementioned two aspects regarding software factors. In this regard, communication and necessary training beforehand are extremely important. Once conflicts arise during forced implementation, it will be too late to think about communication.
In fact, in the eyes of many of our corporate leaders, performance evaluations seem straightforward—set a few indicators, define some numbers, and at the end of the period, "check the accounts," rewarding those who deserve it and deducting wages where necessary, and that’s it. However, what people often fail to realize is that neither performance management nor performance evaluation is as simple or superficial as it seems. Management issues, particularly those related to human resource management, require consistently prioritizing basic daily work at all times. Only after a certain point will it truly bring significant benefits to the company.
Performance management is akin to the giant wheel Jim Collins mentions in *Good to Great* and *Built to Last*. It must gradually be set in motion from a stationary state and then enter a state of rapid self-sustaining operation. Don't be overly excited when you see others' performance management wheels spinning quickly and attempt to replicate their success with unrealistic ambitions reminiscent of past industrial rivalries, expecting your own wheel to spin just as fast so you, as the boss, can enjoy the same comfort as other bosses. You should know that others have paid a great price to get their wheel moving from a stationary state to a rapidly self-sustaining good condition. Without paying that price, you are destined not to reap the expected rewards.
Thus, there may be a sense of being deceived or misled.