Performance Management Systems
Almost every company has an appraisal format. Far fewer have a performance cycle that completes on time, produces decisions people accept, and connects to pay and promotion in a way that survives scrutiny.
The problem
The familiar pattern: goals set in April are irrelevant by October, the mid-year review is skipped, appraisal happens three months late under pressure from the increment cycle, and every manager rates their team highly because ratings have consequences and no calibration exists. The output is a distribution nobody believes and a set of increments that reward the loudest managers.
What this covers
- KRA and goal-setting architecture linked to the annual operating plan
- A full cycle designed to complete — goals, mid-year, annual review, calibration
- Rating scale and calibration mechanism that produces a defensible distribution
- Performance improvement plans structured to withstand later scrutiny
- Manager training, since the system is only as good as the conversations
- High-potential identification and succession planning for critical roles
- Skill matrix, competency mapping and individual development plans
Why me for this
Implemented complete PMS cycles — KRA and goal setting, mid-year and annual appraisal reviews, and performance improvement plans — across multiple organisations. Worked with Success Factors, ABCM, OKR and 5-5-5 review frameworks, Gallup surveys, and assessment and development centres for identifying high-potential employees.
Common questions
Should we use OKRs or KRAs?
It depends far more on management discipline than on the framework. OKRs suit businesses with genuine quarterly rhythm and comfort with ambitious targets that are not fully met. KRAs suit stable operating environments where accountability is against a defined plan. Most companies that switch framework without changing the underlying management behaviour end up with the same problems under new terminology.
How do we handle managers who rate everyone highly?
Calibration, applied consistently. Ratings are reviewed across managers at the same level before they are finalised, so that a generous rater's team is compared against the peer group rather than accepted in isolation. The mechanism matters less than the fact that it is applied every cycle without exception.
Can a PIP protect us in a termination dispute?
A properly run one substantially helps, because it evidences that the employee was told what was deficient, given specific and achievable objectives, given a reasonable period, and supported during it. A PIP issued a fortnight before a decision that had already been taken tends to have the opposite effect.
Related
POSH Compliance & External Member
Internal Committee constitution, external member appointment, training and annual filings under the POSH Act, 2013.
Fractional CHRO
CHRO-grade judgement on a part-time retainer, for companies that need the thinking without the salary.
HR Function Set Up From Scratch
The complete people infrastructure — policies, letters, onboarding, payroll structure and compliance — built once, properly.