DRIVING PERFORMANCE WITH RESULTS BASED HUMAN CAPITAL PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
Rwakurumbira Munyaradzi
Driving Organisational Excellence through Results-Based Management, M&E and Strategic Planning | Health, ICT, Government, NGOs, Private Sector
Introduction
The Results Based Human Capital Performance System (RBHCPS) is a core component of Results Based Management (RBM) that focuses on aligning individual employee performance with organisational goals and strategies. It is a comprehensive approach to managing human capital that emphasizes outcomes, accountability, and continuous improvement.
The concept of the Results-Based Human Capital Performance System is based on the idea that employee performance should be evaluated based on the results they achieve, rather than the activities they perform. This system involves setting clear performance expectations, goals, and objectives for employees that link with organisational goals and objectives, and then evaluating performance based on the achievement of those goals and objectives.
Definition
Results-Based Human Capital Performance System RBHCPS is a comprehensive performance management system that focuses on aligning individual employee performance with organisational goals and strategies. It involves setting clear performance expectations and goals that are linked to strategic priorities, regularly monitoring progress, evaluating performance based on the achievement of results, and providing feedback and support to drive continuous improvement. RBHCPS aims to enhance individual performance and organisational effectiveness by promoting accountability, transparency, and a focus on outcomes."
This definition emphasizes the core elements of RBHCPS, including the focus on results, alignment with strategy, regular monitoring, and the importance of continuous improvement. It can be applied across different industries, sectors, and organisational contexts.
The term "Results-Based Human Capital Performance System" better reflects current best practices and trends in performance management, and emphasizes the importance of people, outcomes, and alignment in driving organisational success.
Human Capital Focus: The term "Human Capital" emphasizes the importance of people as a critical asset and resource in an organisation. It recognizes that employees are not just a cost centre, but also a key driver of organisational performance and success.
Outcome-Focused Approach: The term "Results-Based" emphasizes the importance of measuring and evaluating performance based on outcomes and impact rather than inputs or activities. This approach aligns with current trends in performance management that prioritize outcomes over outputs.
Connecting Individual Work to Organisational Goals: The term "Performance System" highlights the interconnection between individual performance and organisational success. It emphasizes the importance of aligning individual work with organisational goals, objectives ?and strategies, and of providing employees with the support and resources, they need to succeed.
The system typically includes the following elements:
The Results Based Human Capital Performance System is important because it provides a clear and consistent framework for evaluating and improving employee performance. It aligns individual work with organisational priorities, encourages a focus on outcomes and impact, and supports continuous learning and development. By implementing this system, organisations can effectively manage their human capital, drive performance improvement, and achieve their strategic objectives.
Application of RBHCPS
A hypothetical company called XYZ Enterprises decides to implement RBHCPS to improve its performance management system. Here is how they might apply RBHCPS:
Strategic Priorities
Representing the company's strategic goals and objectives.
Key Performance Indicators
Representing the key performance indicators (KPIs) that will be used to measure progress towards those priorities.
Performance Planning?
Representing the process of setting SMART goals and objectives for employees based on the strategic priorities and KPIs.
Performance Monitoring and Evaluation
Representing the ongoing monitoring of progress and the evaluation of performance based on objective and ultimately, goal achievement.
Feedback and Support
Representing the company's efforts to provide feedback and support to employees based on their performance evaluations.
?
By applying RBHCPS, XYZ Enterprises can align individual performance with strategic priorities, promote accountability and continuous improvement, and enhance overall organisational effectiveness.
Evaluation of staff under RBHCPS
This section outlines the evaluation criteria for employees at all levels of the organisation, from the Executive Head to interns and relievers, under the RBHCPS. Evaluation criteria are tailored to each position and are designed to assess performance based on results, growth, and impact. Common evaluation criteria include Learning and Development, Quality of Work, Collaboration and Communication, Professionalism, and Project Outcomes. The RBHCPS provides a framework for supporting employee growth and development, and for driving organisational success.
Rating Scale
The RBHCPS uses a six-point rating scale to evaluate individual employee performance, with a rating of 1 representing the lowest level of performance and a rating of 6 representing the highest level of performance that exceeds set targets, with a particular emphasis on the rating of 4 as a benchmark for measuring performance against targets.
The rating scale described is a six-point scale used to evaluate individual employee performance at the end of each performance cycle. The scale ranges from 1 to 6, with 1 representing the lowest level of performance and 6 representing the highest level of performance that exceeds set targets. The scale places particular emphasis on the rating of 4, which is used as a benchmark to measure how well an employee's performance met or exceeded their goals.
The rationale behind this rating scale is to provide a comprehensive and nuanced assessment of employee performance. The scale allows for a range of ratings, which provides a more detailed and accurate evaluation than a simpler scale with fewer rating options.
The use of a 6-point scale rather than a simpler 5-point scale allows for greater differentiation between levels of performance, particularly in the middle of the scale. This can be particularly useful when differentiating between levels of performance that are generally satisfactory but vary in terms of how well they meet or exceed expectations.
The emphasis on the rating of 4 as a benchmark is designed to ensure that performance evaluations are not biased towards overly positive or negative ratings. By focusing on how well performance meets or exceeds targets, rather than simply evaluating performance relative to other employees or based on personal biases, the rating scale aims to provide a fairer and more accurate assessment of individual performance.
Overall, this rating scale is designed to provide a comprehensive and nuanced evaluation of employee performance that is based on objective measures of performance against targets, rather than subjective evaluations or comparisons to other employees. The rating scale is interpreted as follows:
RATING
DESCRIPTION
6
Clearly Exceeds Set Targets – beyond variance
5
Performance Above Set Targets – but within variance
4
Met All Agreed Set Targets
3
Performance Below Set Targets – but within variance
2
Performance Below Set Targets - below variance
1
Nothing was accomplished
For Rating 3: "Performance Below Set Targets - but within acceptable variance"
For Rating 5: "Performance Above Set Targets - but within acceptable variance"
By adding specific guidance on what constitutes "variance" and providing examples of how it might be applied, the rating scale descriptions can provide a more detailed and consistent framework for evaluating employee performance.
Computation of Ratings
Apportionment of weights to the evaluation criteria is indicated below: -
PERFORMANCE DIMENSION
WEIGHT
MAXIMUM SCORE
Criteria
100%
6.0
Total
100%
6.0
?
To get the maximum score for each criterion its weight multiplied by 6.0, which, is the maximum score and divided by 100.
Formulae: To get the weighted score multiply the rating on the review criterion by the assigned weightage and divide by 100.
Evaluating the different employees by grade using the RBHCPS
a)????? Executive Head of the organisation
Evaluating the performance of the executive head of an organisation is critical to ensuring that the organisation is achieving its goals and objectives and that the executive is providing effective leadership. Using a framework that includes strategic focus, leadership, outcomes achievement, and budget management can provide a comprehensive and balanced assessment of the executive's performance.
Strategic Focus: This criterion evaluates the extent to which the executive has established a clear strategic direction for the organisation and has aligned organisational goals and activities with that strategy. It assesses the executive's ability to think strategically and to translate strategic priorities into actionable plans.
Leadership: This criterion evaluates the executive's effectiveness as a leader, including their ability to motivate and inspire employees, build effective teams, and create a positive organisational culture. It also assesses the executive's communication skills, decision-making ability, and overall leadership style.
Outcomes Achievement: This criterion evaluates the extent to which the executive has achieved the organisational goals and objectives established in the strategic plan. It assesses the executive's ability to deliver results and to drive performance improvement across the organisation.
Budget Management: This criterion evaluates the executive's effectiveness in managing the organisation's financial resources. It assesses the executive's ability to develop and manage budgets, to make informed financial decisions, and to ensure financial sustainability and accountability.
Stakeholder Management: This criterion evaluates the executive's ability to build and maintain effective relationships with key stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, partners, and community groups. It assesses the executive's ability to understand and respond to stakeholder needs and expectations, and to represent the organisation effectively to external audiences.
Innovation and Change Management: This criterion evaluates the executive's ability to drive innovation and manage change within the organisation. It assesses the executive's willingness to take calculated risks, to embrace new ideas and approaches, and to lead the organisation through periods of change and transformation.
Talent Management: This criterion evaluates the executive's effectiveness in recruiting, developing, and retaining talent within the organisation. It assesses the executive's ability to build a strong and capable team, to create a culture that supports learning and development, and to foster a diverse and inclusive workplace.
Corporate Social Responsibility: This criterion evaluates the executive's commitment to responsible and ethical business practices, including environmental sustainability, social responsibility, and community engagement. It assesses the executive's ability to balance financial performance with social and environmental considerations, and to lead the organisation in a way that creates value for all stakeholders.
Together, these criteria provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating the performance of the executive head of an organisation. By assessing performance across multiple dimensions, this approach provides a more nuanced and holistic evaluation that can inform decisions about compensation, professional development, and ongoing support for the executive.
The use of these specific criteria is important because they reflect critical aspects of the executive's role and responsibilities. Strategic focus is essential for setting the direction of the organisation and ensuring that its activities align with its goals. Leadership is critical for motivating and inspiring employees and for creating a positive and effective organisational culture. Outcomes achievement is necessary for delivering results and driving performance improvement. Budget management is essential for ensuring the financial sustainability and accountability of the organisation.
The other criteria reflect important aspects of the executive's role, including the ability to manage relationships, drive innovation, build and lead teams, and uphold ethical and responsible business practices. By incorporating these criteria into the performance evaluation process, organisations can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the executive's performance and effectiveness in leading the organisation.
The weightage given to each of the eight aspects in a performance evaluation can vary depending on the specific organisation and its priorities. However, here is one possible weightage scheme that could be considered:
Strategic Focus: 15%
Leadership: 20%
Outcomes Achievement: 25%
Budget Management: 10%
Stakeholder Management: 10%
Innovation and Change Management: 10%
Talent Management: 5%
Corporate Social Responsibility: 5%
This weighting scheme places the greatest emphasis on outcomes achievement and leadership, as these are critical aspects of the executive's role and have a significant impact on the organisation's success. Strategic focus, budget management, and stakeholder management are also given relatively high weightings, as they are important for ensuring that the organisation is aligned with its goals, is financially sustainable, and is responsive to the needs of its stakeholders. Innovation and change management, talent management, and corporate social responsibility are given lower weightings, but still play an important role in assessing the executive's ability to lead the organisation effectively.
It's important to note that the weightings assigned to each aspect should be based on the specific needs and priorities of the organisation. The weightings can be adjusted over time to reflect changing circumstances or to align with the organisation's strategic direction.
b)????? Deputy to Executive Head (where applicable)
The specific evaluation criteria and weightings used for positions that deputize for the Executive Head of an organisation can vary depending on the organisation's structure and the specific responsibilities of the position. However, some common evaluation criteria might include:
Strategic Leadership: This criterion assesses the extent to which the deputy has demonstrated strategic leadership, including their ability to develop and communicate a strategic vision, align the organisation's activities with its strategic priorities, and drive strategic change. Weighting: 25%
Operational Management: This criterion assesses the deputy's effectiveness in managing the day-to-day operations of the organisation, including their ability to allocate resources effectively, monitor performance, and ensure the organisation meets its operational objectives. Weighting: 20%
Senior Management Leadership: This criterion assesses the deputy's effectiveness in leading and developing the senior management team, including their ability to build a high-performing team, foster collaboration, and drive performance improvement. Weighting: 20%
External Relations: This criterion assesses the deputy's effectiveness in representing the organisation externally, including their ability to build and maintain relationships with key stakeholders, promote the organisation's interests, and enhance its reputation. Weighting: 10%
Business Acumen: This criterion assesses the deputy's business acumen, including their understanding of the organisation's industry and market, their ability to identify and capitalize on opportunities, and their financial management skills. Weighting: 10%
Leadership Development: This criterion assesses the deputy's effectiveness in developing leadership capacity within the organisation, including their ability to identify and develop leadership talent, create a leadership pipeline, and foster a leadership culture. Weighting: 5%
Continuous Improvement: This criterion assesses the deputy's effectiveness in driving continuous improvement within the organisation, including their ability to identify areas for improvement, implement process improvements, and foster a culture of learning and innovation. Weighting: 5%
These evaluation criteria are designed to assess the deputy's effectiveness in fulfilling their leadership and management responsibilities and driving organisational performance. The weightings assigned to each criterion reflect their relative importance and impact on the organisation's success.
It is worth noting that organisations may choose to modify or adapt these criteria and weightings based on their specific context and needs. Regular review and adjustment can ensure that the evaluation process remains relevant and effective over time.
?
c)?????? Departmental Heads
To evaluate the performance of Heads of Departments under the RBHCPS, you could use the following criteria:
Outcomes Achievement: This criterion assesses the extent to which the Head of Department has achieved the outcomes or results specified in their performance plan. It measures the success of their strategies and initiatives in achieving the desired outcomes for the department.
Budget Management: This criterion assesses the Head of Department's effectiveness in managing the department's budget and financial resources. It evaluates their ability to allocate resources effectively, control costs, and achieve financial targets.
Outputs Achievement: This criterion assesses the quantity and quality of the products, services, or other outputs delivered by the department under the leadership of the Head of Department. It measures their effectiveness in delivering the department's core work and meeting client needs.
Team Management: This criterion assesses the Head of Department's effectiveness in managing and developing their team. It includes their ability to recruit and retain talent, build a high-performing team, and create a positive team culture.
Stakeholder Management: This criterion assesses the Head of Department's effectiveness in managing relationships with internal and external stakeholders, including customers, suppliers, and other departments. It measures their ability to build and maintain effective partnerships and to represent the department effectively.
Continuous Improvement: This criterion assesses the Head of Department's effectiveness in driving continuous improvement within the department. It includes their ability to identify areas for improvement, implement process improvements, and foster a culture of learning and innovation.
These criteria are appropriate for evaluating the performance of Heads of Departments because they focus on outcomes, financial management, and productivity, their ability to lead and develop their team, manage relationships, and drive continuous improvement, which are critical aspects of their role.
The weightage assigned to each evaluation criterion for Heads of Departments can vary depending on the specific organisation and the importance placed on each criterion. However, here is one possible weighting scheme:
Outcomes Achievement: 30%
Budget Management: 20%
Outputs Achievement: 20%
Team Management: 10%
Stakeholder Management: 10%
Continuous Improvement: 10%
This weighting scheme places the greatest emphasis on outcomes achievement, budget management, and outputs achievement, as these are critical aspects of the Head of Department's role and have a significant impact on the performance of the department. Team management, stakeholder management, and continuous improvement are also given relatively high weightings to reflect their importance in enabling the department to achieve its objectives.
It is worth noting that the weightings assigned to each criterion should be reviewed and adjusted over time to ensure that they remain appropriate and reflect the changing needs and priorities of the organisation. Regular review and adjustment can help to ensure that the performance evaluation process remains effective and relevant.
d)????? Deputy Directors or equivalent
Evaluation criteria for positions that deputize for Heads of Departments might include the following:
Departmental Support: This criterion assesses the extent to which the deputy has provided effective support to the Head of Department, including their ability to relieve the Head of Department of administrative and operational tasks, and to act as a sounding board for ideas and decisions. Weighting: 25%
Team Leadership: This criterion assesses the deputy's effectiveness in leading and developing the departmental team, including their ability to motivate and inspire team members, resolve conflicts, and foster a positive team culture. Weighting: 20%
Project Management: This criterion assesses the deputy's effectiveness in managing departmental projects, including their ability to plan and prioritize projects, allocate resources effectively, and ensure projects are delivered on time and within budget. Weighting: 15%
Budget Management: This criterion assesses the deputy's effectiveness in managing the department's budget, including their ability to monitor and control expenses, identify cost-saving opportunities, and ensure financial accountability. Weighting: 10%
Stakeholder Management: This criterion assesses the deputy's effectiveness in managing relationships with internal and external stakeholders, including their ability to build and maintain relationships, communicate effectively, and represent the department's interests. Weighting: 10%
Continuous Improvement: This criterion assesses the deputy's effectiveness in driving continuous improvement within the department, including their ability to identify areas for improvement, implement process improvements, and foster a culture of learning and innovation. Weighting: 10%
These evaluation criteria are designed to assess the deputy's effectiveness in supporting the Head of Department, leading the departmental team, managing projects and budgets, building relationships with stakeholders, and driving continuous improvement. The weightings assigned to each criterion reflect their relative importance and impact on the department's performance.
As with the criteria for deputies to the Executive Head, organisations may choose to modify or adapt these criteria and weightings based on their specific context and needs. Regular review and adjustment can help ensure that the evaluation process remains relevant and effective over time.
e)????? Managers or equivalent
For managers who may or may not have subordinates and may or may not head units or sections, evaluation criteria might include:
Management Effectiveness: This criterion assesses the manager's effectiveness in planning, organizing, and controlling the activities of their unit or section. It includes their ability to set clear goals and objectives, allocate resources effectively, and monitor performance. Weighting: 25%
Team Leadership: This criterion assesses the manager's effectiveness in leading and developing their team, if applicable. It includes their ability to motivate and inspire team members, resolve conflicts, and foster a positive team culture. Weighting: 20%
Project Management: This criterion assesses the manager's effectiveness in managing projects within their unit or section, if applicable. It includes their ability to plan and prioritize projects, allocate resources effectively, and ensure projects are delivered on time and within budget. Weighting: 10-15% (depending on the importance of project management to the manager's role)
Technical Expertise: This criterion assesses the manager's technical knowledge and skills in their area of expertise. It includes their ability to apply their expertise to solve problems, make decisions, and provide guidance to their team or unit. Weighting: 10-15% (depending on the importance of technical expertise to the manager's role)
Stakeholder Management: This criterion assesses the manager's effectiveness in managing relationships with internal and external stakeholders, including their ability to build and maintain relationships, communicate effectively, and represent their unit or section's interests. Weighting: 10%
Continuous Improvement: This criterion assesses the manager's effectiveness in driving continuous improvement within their unit or section, including their ability to identify areas for improvement, implement process improvements, and foster a culture of learning and innovation. Weighting: 10%
These evaluation criteria are designed to assess the manager's effectiveness in managing their unit or section, leading their team (if applicable), delivering projects (if applicable), applying their technical expertise, building relationships with stakeholders, and driving continuous improvement. The weightings assigned to each criterion reflect their relative importance and impact on the manager's performance and the success of their unit or section.
As with the other evaluation criteria discussed, organisations may choose to modify or adapt these criteria and weightings based on their specific context and needs. Regular review and adjustment can ensure that the evaluation process remains relevant and effective over time.
f)?????? Supervisors or equivalent grades (where applicable)
For supervisors or equivalent grades, evaluation criteria might include:
Supervisory Effectiveness: This criterion assesses the supervisor's effectiveness in supervising, monitoring, and supporting the work of their subordinates. It includes their ability to provide clear guidance and direction, address performance issues, and support employee development. Weighting: 25-30% (depending on the importance of supervisory responsibilities to the supervisor's role)
Work Quality: This criterion assesses the quality of the supervisor's work, including their ability to deliver accurate and timely work, attention to detail, and compliance with quality standards. Weighting: 20-25% (depending on the importance of work quality to the supervisor's role)
Communication and Teamwork: This criterion assesses the supervisor's effectiveness in communicating with their subordinates, colleagues, and superiors, and in working collaboratively as part of a team. Weighting: 15-20% (depending on the importance of communication and teamwork to the supervisor's role)
Client Service: This criterion assesses the supervisor's ability to provide excellent client service, both internal and external, by responding promptly to inquiries, resolving customer issues, and fostering a customer-centric culture within the team. Weighting: 10-15 %.
g)????? Professional staff
For professional staff members who produce various outputs as their key deliverables, evaluation criteria under the RBHCPS (Results-Based Human Capital Performance System) might include:
Quantity of Outputs: This criterion assesses the quantity of work produced by the professional staff member, taking into account the scope and complexity of their responsibilities, the resources available to them, and any challenges or obstacles they may have encountered. Weighting: 10-15%
Quality of Outputs: This criterion assesses the quality of the professional staff member's work, including their attention to detail, accuracy, and effectiveness in meeting customer or client needs. Weighting: 30-35%
Timeliness of Outputs: This criterion assesses the professional staff member's ability to deliver their work on time, including their ability to manage their workload, prioritize tasks, and meet deadlines. Weighting: 20-25%
Innovation and Creativity: This criterion assesses the professional staff member's ability to think creatively and come up with innovative solutions to problems, as well as their willingness to challenge the status quo and suggest new approaches. Weighting: 10-15%
Continuous Learning and Improvement: This criterion assesses the professional staff member's commitment to continuous learning and improvement, including their willingness to seek feedback, engage in professional development activities, and incorporate new knowledge into their work. Weighting: 10-15%
Teamwork and Collaboration: This criterion assesses the professional staff member's effectiveness in working collaboratively with others, including their ability to communicate effectively, contribute to team goals, and resolve conflicts. Weighting: 5-10%
Adherence to Professional Standards: This criterion assesses the professional staff member's adherence to relevant professional standards and ethics, including their commitment to maintaining professional knowledge and skills, and to acting ethically and responsibly. Weighting: 5-10%
These evaluation criteria are designed to assess the professional staff member's effectiveness in delivering high-quality work, meeting deadlines, thinking creatively, engaging in continuous learning, working collaboratively, and adhering to professional standards. The weightings assigned to each criterion reflect their relative importance and impact on the professional staff member's performance and contribution to the organisation's success.
In addition to these criteria, professional staff members may also be evaluated on other aspects of their work, such as their ability to manage projects, mentor or coach others, or contribute to organisational initiatives. The specific evaluation criteria and weightings used should be tailored to the specific job requirements and organisational priorities.
h)????? Assistants
Assistants, such as technicians or office administrators, play a critical role in supporting the work of professionals and ensuring that processes run smoothly. Some aspects of their work that can be evaluated under the RBHCPS include:
Technical Skills and Knowledge: This criterion assesses the assistant's technical skills and knowledge related to their specific job duties, such as their ability to operate equipment, use software, or perform technical tasks. Weighting: 25-30%
Quality of Work: This criterion assesses the quality of the assistant's work, including their accuracy, attention to detail, and ability to identify and correct errors. Weighting: 20-25%
Productivity and Efficiency: This criterion assesses the assistant's productivity and efficiency in completing their work, including their ability to manage their time effectively, prioritize tasks, and meet deadlines. Weighting: 10-15%
Collaboration and Communication: This criterion assesses the assistant's effectiveness in collaborating with professionals and other team members, including their ability to communicate clearly, respond promptly to requests, and contribute to team goals. Weighting: 10-15%
Continuous Learning and Improvement: This criterion assesses the assistant's commitment to continuous learning and improvement, including their willingness to seek feedback, develop new skills, and contribute to process improvements. Weighting: 5-10%
Adherence to Policies and Procedures: This criterion assesses the assistant's adherence to organisational policies and procedures, including their understanding and compliance with relevant rules and regulations. Weighting: 5-10%
These evaluation criteria are designed to assess the assistant's technical skills, quality of work, productivity, collaboration, commitment to learning, and adherence to policies. The weightings assigned to each criterion reflect their relative importance and impact on the assistant's performance and the effectiveness of the processes they support.
It is worth noting that assistants may also be evaluated on additional criteria, such as their client service skills, ability to handle confidential information, or adaptability to changing priorities. The specific evaluation criteria and weightings used should be tailored to the specific job requirements and organisational priorities.
i)??????? Support staff
For support staff members who mainly carry out assigned activities, the following evaluation criteria can be used:
Attendance and Punctuality: This criterion assesses the support staff member's regular attendance and punctuality in carrying out their assigned activities. Weighting: 30-35%
Work Ethic: This criterion assesses the support staff member's work ethic, including their reliability, diligence, and willingness to take initiative. Weighting: 25-30%
Adherence to Safety Procedures: This criterion assesses the support staff member's adherence to safety procedures, including their understanding and compliance with relevant rules and regulations. Weighting: 15-20%
Quality of Work: This criterion assesses the quality of the support staff member's work, including their attention to detail, accuracy, and efficiency. Weighting: 10-15%
Communication and Teamwork: This criterion assesses the support staff member's effectiveness in communicating with colleagues and managers, and in working collaboratively as part of a team. Weighting: 5-10%
Continuous Learning and Improvement: This criterion assesses the support staff member's commitment to continuous learning and improvement, including their willingness to seek feedback, develop new skills, and contribute to process improvements. Weighting: 5-10%
These evaluation criteria are designed to assess the support staff member's reliability, work ethic, adherence to safety procedures, quality of work, communication, and commitment to learning. The weightings assigned to each criterion reflect their relative importance and impact on the support staff member's performance and the smooth operation of the organisation.
It is important to note that these evaluation criteria may be tailored to the specific job requirements and organisational priorities, and that support staff members may be evaluated on additional criteria as appropriate. Regular feedback and evaluation can help support staff members to develop their skills, improve their performance, and contribute to the overall success of the organisation.
j)??????? Interns and Relievers
Evaluation criteria for interns and relievers might include:
Learning and Development: This criterion assesses the individual's growth and development throughout their internship or temporary assignment. It includes their ability to learn new skills, take on new responsibilities, and apply feedback to improve their performance. Weighting: 30-35%
Quality of Work: This criterion assesses the quality of the individual's work, including their accuracy, attention to detail, and ability to meet standards. Weighting: 25-30%
Collaboration and Communication: This criterion assesses the individual's effectiveness in collaborating with colleagues and communicating with supervisors. It includes their ability to work as part of a team, contribute to team goals, and seek feedback and guidance. Weighting: 10-15%
Professionalism: This criterion assesses the individual's professionalism, including their punctuality, reliability, and adherence to organisational policies and procedures. Weighting: 10-15%
Project Outcomes: This criterion assesses the outcomes of any specific projects or assignments the individual has worked on during their internship or temporary assignment. It includes their ability to meet deadlines, deliver quality work, and contribute to the success of the project. Weighting: 10-15%
The weightings assigned to each criterion can be adjusted based on the specific job requirements, the duration of the internship or temporary assignment, and the organisation's priorities. It is also important to provide regular feedback to interns and relievers, so they can incorporate feedback and improve their performance over time.
Additionally, organisations may want to evaluate interns and relievers on their potential for future employment, taking into account their attitude, willingness to learn, and fit with the organisation's culture and values.
Evaluation Forms
Results-Based Evaluation Forms can be designed to fit different bands or categories of employees by tailoring the evaluation criteria and assessment methods to the specific outcomes or results that are relevant to each group. The specific number of bands or categories used in a performance evaluation system can vary depending on the size and complexity of the organisation, as well as its specific performance evaluation needs and goals. However, using four broad bands, such as Senior Executives, Middle Management, Individual Contributors, and Support Staff, can provide a flexible and scalable framework that can be adapted to fit different roles and responsibilities.Here are some examples of how this might be done.
1.????? Senior Executives: Evaluation criteria may include financial outcomes, such as revenue growth, profitability, or return on investment. Assessment methods may include comparing actual results to targets or industry benchmarks, or evaluating the effectiveness of strategies and decisions made by the executive.
Deputy Executive Heads: May fall within the Senior Executives band if they have significant leadership responsibilities, such as overseeing multiple departments or business units, and participate in strategic decision-making processes.
Directors: May fall within either the Senior Executives or Middle Management bands, depending on their level of authority and the size of the organisation. In smaller organisations, Directors may have more strategic responsibilities and fall within the Senior Executives band, while in larger organisations, they may focus more on operational management and fall within the Middle Management band.
Deputy Directors: May fall within the Middle Management band if they oversee specific departments or functions and report to a Director or Senior Executive.
2.????? Middle Management: Evaluation criteria may include operational outcomes, such as process efficiency, quality metrics, or customer satisfaction. Assessment methods may include analysing data from internal systems or conducting surveys to gather feedback from stakeholders.
3.????? Individual Contributors: Evaluation criteria may include task-level outcomes, such as the completion of projects or the achievement of personal goals. Assessment methods may include tracking progress against milestones or using peer or supervisor feedback to evaluate the quality of work.
4.????? Support Staff: Evaluation criteria may include service outcomes, such as response times, resolution rates, or customer feedback. Assessment methods may include analysing data from support ticketing systems or conducting satisfaction surveys with customers or colleagues.
Interns or Relievers: Evaluation criteria may include learning outcomes, such as the acquisition of new skills or knowledge, or the application of theoretical concepts in a practical setting. Assessment methods may include pre- and post-assessments of knowledge or skills, or supervisor evaluations of the intern's performance over time.
By tailoring the Results-Based Evaluation Form to the specific evaluation aspects that are relevant to each band or category of employees, organisations can ensure that their performance evaluation system is fair, valid, and useful for driving individual and organisational growth and success. Overall, the goal of using broad bands in a performance evaluation system is to provide a flexible framework that can accommodate different roles and responsibilities, while still allowing for meaningful and differentiated evaluations of employee performance.
Which organisations have applied RBHCPS?
Results-Based Human Capital Performance System (RBHCPS) may not be a widely known or established framework. However, according to recent research, there are several examples of organisations across industries that have successfully applied similar principles and approaches to managing their human capital. Here are a few examples:
Google: The technology giant is known for its innovative approach to human resource management, including using data and analytics to drive decision-making and performance evaluation. Google evaluates employee performance based on specific objectives and key results (OKRs), which align with the company's strategic priorities.
Hilton: The global hospitality company has implemented a performance management system that focuses on ongoing feedback and development, rather than traditional annual performance reviews. Hilton's system includes regular check-ins between employees and managers, and a clear connection between individual performance and the company's strategic goals.
American Express: The financial services company has adopted a human capital strategy that emphasizes employee engagement, development, and retention. American Express evaluates employee performance based on a combination of financial metrics and behavioural competencies, which are linked to the company's strategic priorities and values.
Hay Group: This global consulting firm has helped numerous organisations transform their HR strategies and performance management systems. Hay Group's approach focuses on aligning individual performance with organisational strategy, using data and analytics to drive decision-making, and developing customized performance management systems that fit each client's unique needs.
Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA): KRA implemented a results-based performance management system in 2012, which included a comprehensive set of performance indicators, regular feedback and coaching, and a robust system for rewarding high performance. As a result, KRA saw a significant improvement in revenue collection, with a 40% increase in tax revenue between 2012 and 2016.
Rwanda Development Board (RDB): RDB implemented a results-based performance management system in 2015, which included clear performance targets, regular feedback and coaching, and a robust system for tracking progress and rewarding high performance. This led to a significant improvement in RDB's performance, with a 37% increase in private sector investment and a 41% increase in exports between 2015 and 2018.
MTN Uganda: MTN Uganda, a telecommunications company, implemented a results-based performance management system in 2017, which included a comprehensive set of performance indicators, regular feedback and coaching, and a robust system for rewarding high performance. As a result, MTN Uganda saw a significant improvement in customer satisfaction, with a 10% increase in its Net Promoter Score between 2017 and 2019.
Ecobank Transnational Incorporated (ETI): ETI, a pan-African banking group, implemented a results-based performance management system in 2018, which included a comprehensive set of performance indicators, regular feedback and coaching, and a robust system for tracking progress and rewarding high performance. This led to a significant improvement in ETI's performance, with a 30% increase in profits and a 25% increase in customer deposits between 2018 and 2020.
Cisco Systems: The technology company has implemented a human resource strategy that emphasizes employee development and engagement, including a performance management system that focuses on ongoing feedback, coaching, and development. Cisco's system includes a mix of financial and non-financial metrics, as well as a strong emphasis on employee growth and learning.
General Electric: GE has a long history of using results-based performance management, including its famous "rank and yank" system that required managers to rank employees and take action to improve the performance of those in the bottom 10%.
Procter & Gamble: P&G has implemented a results-based performance management system that emphasizes goal-setting, feedback, and development. The system includes annual performance reviews, ongoing feedback and coaching, and a robust system for tracking progress towards goals.
Deloitte: The professional services firm has adopted a results-based performance management system that emphasizes individual development and growth. The system includes regular feedback, coaching, and training opportunities, as well as a robust system for measuring and rewarding performance.
Nucor Steel: This steel manufacturer has implemented a results-based performance management system that emphasizes employee involvement and empowerment. The system includes profit-sharing and bonus programs that are tied to individual and company performance, as well as a strong emphasis on continuous improvement and innovation.
Cummins Inc.: This diesel engine manufacturer has implemented a performance management system that emphasizes individual development and growth. The system includes regular feedback and coaching, as well as a robust system for tracking progress towards goals and rewarding high performance.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): UNDP has implemented a performance management system that focuses on results and impact, using a mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of its programs and the performance of its staff.
World Bank: The World Bank has developed a results-based approach to human resource management, which includes setting clear performance objectives for employees, providing ongoing feedback and coaching, and evaluating performance based on achievement of results.
International Rescue Committee (IRC): This NGO has implemented a performance management system that emphasizes ongoing feedback and development, as well as a strong focus on results and impact. IRC's system includes regular check-ins and coaching conversations between employees and managers, and a robust system for tracking progress towards goals.
Singapore Public Service: The Singapore government has implemented a performance management system that emphasizes results, accountability, and excellence. The system includes a comprehensive set of performance indicators and evaluation criteria, and is designed to drive continuous improvement and innovation across the public sector.
World Vision International: This NGO has developed a performance management system that focuses on results, accountability, and learning. The system includes a mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators, and is designed to support employee development and growth while driving organisational performance and impact.
These examples illustrate how organisations across industries have successfully applied principles of results-based human capital management, including aligning individual performance with organisational strategy, using data and analytics to drive decision-making, and focusing on ongoing feedback and development rather than traditional performance reviews. Examples from the public and non-profit sectors show how the organisations are using results-based approaches to human capital management to drive performance, accountability, and continuous improvement. These approaches can provide valuable lessons for other organisations seeking to enhance their performance management systems and drive better outcomes for their employees and stakeholders.
Concerning countries like Zimbabwe, there is evidence that public agencies and NGOs are embracing traditionally favoured a results-based management approach, which aligns with the core principles of RBHCPS.
It seems that there may be a growing awareness and interest in results based approaches to human capital management in Zimbabwe. This could present an opportunity for more organisations, including private sector companies, to explore implementing similar systems to drive performance and improve outcomes.
?
Challenges of successfully applying the Results-Based Human Capital Performance System (RBHCPS) and some suggestions for addressing them
Resistance to change: Implementing RBHCPS may require significant changes to existing performance management systems and practices. Some employees or managers may be resistant to these changes, particularly if they are accustomed to a more traditional, activity-based approach to performance evaluation. To address this challenge, it is important to communicate the benefits of RBHCPS clearly, provide training and support to help employees and managers understand and use the new system effectively, and involve stakeholders in the design and implementation process to build ownership and buy-in.
Inconsistent application: Inconsistent application of RBHCPS across the organisation can undermine its effectiveness and lead to perceptions of unfairness. To address this challenge, organisations should ensure that RBHCPS is implemented consistently across all levels and functions, with clear guidelines and standards for performance planning, monitoring, evaluation, and recognition.
Overreliance on quantitative metrics: While quantitative metrics are important in RBHCPS, overreliance on them can overlook important qualitative aspects of performance. To address this challenge, organisations should use a balanced approach to performance evaluation that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative measures, such as 360-degree feedback and behavioural indicators.
Lack of alignment with organisational strategy: RBHCPS is most effective when performance goals and objectives are closely aligned with organisational strategy. To address this challenge, organisations should ensure that performance planning is informed by strategic priorities and that progress towards strategic goals is incorporated into performance evaluation.
Insufficient training and support: RBHCPS requires new skills and capabilities for employees and managers, such as goal-setting, performance monitoring, and feedback. To address this challenge, organisations should invest in training and development programs to build the necessary skills and provide ongoing support and coaching to help employees and managers succeed in the new system.
Conclusion
The concept of RBHCPS represents a promising approach to human capital management that aligns individual performance with organisational goals and provides ongoing feedback and development. By using data and analytics to drive decision-making, RBHCPS offers a more objective and effective way to evaluate employee performance, identify high performers, and make informed decisions about compensation and development.
The success stories of organisations that have implemented RBHCPS, including those in both the public and private sectors, provide compelling evidence of its effectiveness. These organisations have seen significant improvements in performance, including increased revenue, higher client satisfaction, and improved efficiency. While there may be challenges to implementing RBHCPS, such as resistance to change and the need for ongoing training and support, the potential benefits are clear.
As organisations continue to seek ways to improve their performance and drive growth, RBHCPS is a strategy worth considering. By focusing on results and aligning individual performance with organisational goals and objectives, RBHCPS offers a powerful tool for driving performance and fostering employee development. While further research and exploration into this topic is needed, the success stories of organisations that have implemented RBHCPS offer a promising glimpse into the potential benefits of this approach.
?
?
?
?
References
4.????? MTN Uganda's Performance Management System by the African Journal of Business Management (2019).
5.????? Rwanda Development Board: A Case Study in Performance Management" by the Centre for Strategic Leadership (2019).
6.????? MTN Uganda's Journey to Performance Excellence by the Uganda Management Institute (2018).
7.????? Performance Management at Ecobank Transnational Incorporated A Case Study by the African Journal of Business Management (2018).
8.????? Results-Based Management in Rwanda: The Case of the Rwanda Development Board by the African Development Bank (2018).
10.? The Power of People: Using Performance Management to Drive Value in Business by Dave Ulrich and Jack Zenger (McGraw-Hill Education, 2018).
11.? Transforming Kenya Revenue Authority through Strategic Performance Management by George Muruka and Anthony Mulwa, in the Journal of African Business (2018).
12.? Performance Management in the Private Sector: Trends and Best Practices by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) (2017).
13.? Performance Management at the Rwanda Development Board: A Case Study by the Rwanda Governance Board (2017).
14.? Kenya Revenue Authority: A Case Study in Performance Management by the Institute of Public Finance Kenya (2016).
15.? Performance Management at Deloitte by Deloitte University Press (2016).
16.? Results-Based Management in the Private Sector: A Guide for Business Leaders by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) (2016).
17.? Performance Management at Kenya Revenue Authority: A Case Study by the Kenya School of Government (2015).
18.? Performance Management 2.0: Rewriting the Rules for Excellence by Michael E. Lanning and Mary Uhl-Bien (MIT Sloan Management Review, spring, 2015).
19.? The New Rules of Talent Management in the Digital Age by Ram Charan, Stephen Drotter, and James Champy (Harvard Business Review, January 2015).
20.? Linking Performance Management to Business Results: A Study of Private Sector Companies by the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) (2014).
21.? Nucor Steel: A Case Study in Performance Management" by McKinsey & Company (2010).
22.? The Results-Driven Culture: Building a Commitment to Excellence and Innovation by Paul L. H. Schoemaker and Steven Krupp (Harvard Business Review, April 2010).
23.? The Science of Success: How Market-Based Management Built the World's Largest Private Company by Charles Koch (Crown Business, 2007).
26.? Performance Management in the Public Sector: A Toolkit for Capacity Building by the United Nations Development Programme (2005).
28.? Results-Based Management for the Public Sector by the World Bank (2003).
About the writer
Rwakurumbira Munyaradzi is an experienced Management Consultant with 16+ years of experience in various sectors, specializing in Results-Based Management (RBM), Strategic Planning, Leadership Development and Coaching, Teambuilding, Organisational Design and Governance, Change Management, Problem Solving, Stakeholder Engagement, Communication, Data Analysis, Visualization, and Presentation. Holds an MPhil in Development Policy and Practice, and various certifications in Governance, Leadership, and Organisational Development. Possesses a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities in Organisational and Human Capital Development, and is skilled at navigating complex, multi-stakeholder environments. Expertise in designing and delivering customized training programmes, and in using data and evaluation to inform decision-making and support ongoing performance improvement.
Should you need his services to implement or build organisational capacity in Results Based Management in general or Results Based Human Capital Performance System in particular, please contact him via: email: [email protected]? or call +263773487108
?
?
?