Laura is head of HR at a $1.2B bank. She takes pride in the quality of branch staff, low turnover rates and the frequent positive feedback from customers. She is also a perfectionist. She detects slight variances in daily performance and wants to fix them. At her urging, bank management develops a balanced scorecard to measure employee performance.
The bank does an impeccable job. Employees meet regularly with managers to discuss performance. It is awkward at first, so they make it fun by creating competition among branches and rewarding actions that support the scorecard. They ultimately create a seamless system that ties employee behavior to company strategy, leveraging every data point and producing detailed reports on demand.
For a while, everything runs smoothly. Measures and competencies align. Employee behavior reflects corporate goals. System-wide, technology makes it easy to enter and compare data.
Soon, the scorecard becomes all-consuming. The attention of front-line staff shifts permanently to non-customer-facing activities, and customer concerns are ignored. Engagement of top performers decreases across the network as branch managers sacrifice simple, direct coaching for the sake of plotting, charting and reporting. Ultimately, the ripple effect compromises every customer’s experience. The qualities that once made the bank stand out disappear.
What happened here? It’s a great illustration of the pendulum swinging too far. The bank did a lot of things right, but it did one thing wrong. It dismissed the complexity of human behavior. Ironically, measuring data about intangibles such as “engagement,” “empowerment” and “sincere customer service” backfired, creating an environment where these concepts were pushed aside.
Performance management tools are just that: tools. They are ideal for guiding the power of fully engaged employees or redirecting those who are not there yet. But when it comes to the complexities of human activities, they are a poor substitute for rich coaching and supportive management.
Our Point of View