1. Eric McErlain, June 7, 2016
Integrative Thinking and Performance Management at Google
In Chapter 7 of Work Rules!, Laszlo Bock dives into minute detail concerning how Google
worked to optimize the company’s performance management system: “Performance
management as practiced by most organizations has become a rule-based bureaucratic
process, existing as an end in itself rather than actually shaping performance. Employees hate
it. Managers hate it. Even HR Departments hate it,” wrote Bock.
Bock continued, “Even at Google, our system was far from perfect … The two primary
complaints were that it took too much time, and the process wasn’t transparent enough, which
raised concerns about fairness. So what were we doing right that made our employees twice as
happy with the system as employees elsewhere -- but still not happy enough? And what were
we doing wrong?”
In this paper, I’ll benchmark Bock’s efforts to evolve Google’s performance management
rankings against the factors laid out in The Opposable Mind. Did Bock’s demonstrate integrative
thinking? Was it a success? And what learnings could I apply to my own workplace?
Early in Work Rules!, Bock provides the insight into the experiences that informed his stance
about reforming the workplace. “But by 2003, I was frustrated. Frustrated because even the
best-designed business plans fell apart when people didn't believe in them. Frustrated because
leaders always spoke of putting people first, and then treated them like replaceable gears,”
Bock wrote. “You spend more time working than doing anything else in life. It's not right that
the experience of work, even at some of the best employers, should be so de-motivating and
dehumanizing.” It was then that Bock took a job at General Electric, where he would be

2. Eric McErlain, June 7, 2016
Integrative Thinking and Performance Management at Google
exposed to their vaunted 20-70-10 performance management system, as well as Six Sigma, a
data-driven process to improve quality and efficiency. With these tools in hand, Bock was ready
to go to work at Google.
According to Martin, integrative thinkers share six things in common in the stance they take
toward complicated business challenges. Here’s how Bock measured up.
Conflicting models don't represent reality: Instead of approaching performance management
as an either/or question, Bock was willing to look for something better, even when 55% of
Googlers, 25% higher than the industry average, said they were satisfied with the performance
management system.
Existing models are to be leveraged not feared: While Google’s current system wasn’t perfect,
Bock wasn’t willing to surrender and eliminate evaluations completely. Instead, he used his
current system as a base and plowed ahead with a determination to fine tune it.
Better models can exist, just not created yet: Bock’s early career experiences left him with a
passion to develop something better to revolutionize the workplace and treat employees more
humanely. Wrote Bock: “Low point on my first project: I asked my manager for career advice
and he told me, "You guys are all like arrows in a quiver. Every one of you is the same."
They are capable of bringing the better model from abstraction to reality: Despite his early
career frustration, Bock is fundamentally optimistic, and buoyed by Google’s employee-centric
culture, believes he has what it takes to make something new and better. We see this

3. Eric McErlain, June 7, 2016
Integrative Thinking and Performance Management at Google
fundamentally optimistic outlook when he describes transitioning his career to human
resources. "My colleagues in consulting thought I was committing professional suicide, but I'd
done my homework ... I reasoned that my training and background would make me stand out in
the HR talent pool and help me come up with novel situations (emphasis mine)."
Comfortable wading into complexity in orderto create a new model: As Bock leads us deeper
into the process, the complexity seems to rachet out of control as one set of Googlers totalling
over 1,000 employees decides to further subdivide their performance categories. But instead of
yielding to the urge to simplify, Bock lets the experiment play out.
Give themselves time to create a new, better model: Reading the chapter on performance
evaluation was mentally taxing. There seemed to be no option that Bock would exhaust in
order to find a small win. He clearly was committed to giving his team the time and space to
create something new and better.
Perhaps the ultimate tribute to Bock’s integrative thinking skills is the fact that he used them to
adopt a fundamentally dis-integrative solution: severing the connection between performance
evaluation and people development.
So how did it all come out? Wrote Bock, “Across the board, the new process was viewed as no
worse than the old. While it seems like a Pyrrhic victory, it was actually a huge relief for me.
Some Googlers had worried that the loss of precision conveyed by a 41-point rating scale would
mean that our ratings would have become less useful and meaningful. Instead, Googlers’ survey

4. Eric McErlain, June 7, 2016
Integrative Thinking and Performance Management at Google
responses revealed what we suspected all along: The forty-one point created only the illusion of
precision.”
In Google’s culture of experimentation, one that’s designed to let the company “fail faster”, the
attempt should be looked upon as a “thoughtful failure” it has learned to tolerate as the price
of fostering innovation. In this case, the effort yielded empirical evidence that confirmed one of
Google’s theories about their performance management system. There is a better model, and I
have little doubt Bock and his team at Google have been hard at work diving back into the
complexity in pursuit of that better model.
Developing an integrative solution takes a considerable investment of time, energy and focus. I
discovered that first hand when I helped modify our organization’s performance review system
based on feedback from an employee survey. While compiling the results only took a few
weeks, identifying action items and implementing them took a full year.
After reviewing the feedback, it was clear there was some dissatisfaction. The process of
establishing performance objectives didn’t begin until well into the 4th quarter of the year, and
because the approval process took so long, final objectives were not approved by management
until the end of the first quarter of the new year. Employees told us they wanted the process
reformed so they could enter a new year with their objectives already established. With that in
mind, we moved back the start of that process to the middle of the fourth quarter and got a
commitment from management to speed approvals so it could be completed by the end of the
year.

5. Eric McErlain, June 7, 2016
Integrative Thinking and Performance Management at Google
As for the performance assessments themselves, the employees in the focus groups told us that
they believed the process needed more transparency. Similar to Google, we had used a five
point system (1-5) in half-point increments (1.5-4.5) to grade performance. Assessments were
delivered twice per year, at the end of the second quarter and then again at year-end. While
the mid-year assessment does include scoring, the focus of that evaluation has traditionally
been for coaching, letting the employee know whether management believes they are “on-
track” to achieving objectives.
In response, we provided more insight to staff as to how the scoring system worked as well as
sharing benchmarking data with managers so they could get a better idea of how scores were
awarded across the organization. During our bi-annual training week, we offered tutorials on
how to conduct performance assessments, while also enabling additional fine tuning in the
scoring system by allowing scores to be awarded in quarter-point increments.
So how did we do? The real benchmarks came when the latest employee survey results were
tabulated. 48% of employees said they were satisfied with the performance review program, an
increase of 6% over 2013. When we asked the question of whether or not the program set
worthwhile performance objectives, 52% agreed, an 8% drop from the previous survey. In
terms of identifying areas that required improvement, 53% agreed the process did a good job, a
4% increase. In response to the question of whether or not the process of summarized job
performance accurately, 64% agreed, an increase of 9%. When we asked if the program helped
further their careers, 35% said yes, an increase of 2% over 2013.

6. Eric McErlain, June 7, 2016
Integrative Thinking and Performance Management at Google
So what’s the upshot? It’s time to start the process again, or at least remind my teammates of
the work we did in 2014 and what our fellow employees are telling us about the changes we
made. While we should be happy with most of the feedback, there’s a better model out there,
and we can find it, if we only create the time and space to make it happen.
Endnotes:
Laszlo Bock, Work Rules! Insights from Google That Will Change How You Live and Lead, 2015,
Hachette Book Group, Inc.
Roger L. Martin, The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative
Thinking, 2007, Harvard Business School Press
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/when-two-thoughts-beat-
one/article18149773/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/book-review-work-rules-by-laszlo-bock-1428361249
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danpontefract/2015/04/27/work-rules-rules-at-
google/#337a5e1e19bc
http://www.danpontefract.com/why-id-work-with-googles-laszlo-bock-one-day/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathryndill/2015/03/25/its-ok-if-they-copy-us-googles-hr-chief-
on-the-upside-of-giving-away-staffing-secrets/#7db08b2f2a60
https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Google-EI_IE9079.11,17.htm
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jw_on_tech/2012/03/13/why-i-left-google/
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-worst-part-about-working-at-Google
http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/18/why-google-employees-quit/