kpojhgvb

1. CASE ANALYSIS FOR HENKEL
COHORT -6 - Group Members
1. Amit Mishra (XOH22001)
2. Angela Chanana (XOH22004)
3. Ganesan (XOH22012)
4. Unnati Israni (XOH22025)

2. CURRENT MARKET & GROWTH :
IQ Metrix, a software development company founded in Regina, Saskatchewan & now
headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, was built on the idea that sharing
information and metrics through computer systems would lead to breakthroughs in
efficiency, productivity, and competitive advantage.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Jessica Taplow is trying to address the difficulties and shortcomings of performance
evaluation systems in her quasi-experiment. These systems are often seen as
cumbersome, slow, expensive, time-consuming, backward-looking, demotivating, and
unfair. They are disliked by both employees and managers. However, performance
evaluation systems are considered necessary for rewarding good performance, penalizing
poor performance, and identifying development needs. Taplow is hoping to identify a
system that minimizes these difficulties while still delivering the benefits of performance
evaluation

3. OLD CULTURE :
Organizational hierarchy that pushed
‘accountability upward’ and required
employees to seek authority for
decision-making.
This resulted in lost time, a lack of
ownership, and low levels of
accountability.
The more powerful individuals
enjoyed perks and power, while the
less powerful had little or no
accountability.
NEW CULTURE :
It emphasized flat decision-making
structures, where employees had access to
information, autonomy, and authority to
make decisions.
It help to create a more egalitarian and
empowered environment.
The goal was to foster creativity, innovation,
individual growth and collaboration
throughout the organization.

4. Old Strategy /DESIGN: The old strategy was focused on creating the “ULTIMATE ORGANISATION" where creativity,
innovation, and employee flourishing were prioritized. The founders believed in flat decision-making structures, where employees
had access to information, autonomy, and authority to make decisions. The goal was to create an organization where solutions and
innovations could emerge from anywhere within the company.
New strategy /DESIGN : As the company grew and opened satellite offices, there was pressure to become more formalized.
In early 2017, iQmetrix adopted HOLACRACY as a new organizational design. Holacracy brought significant changes to the company's
structure and management approach.
With the adoption of holacracy, the organization shifted from traditional hierarchical structures to a system based on simple
rules. Job titles were replaced with roles, and there were no managers in the traditional sense.
Authority was distributed throughout the organization, and work was organized by groups of employees called "circles" that formed and
disbanded as needed.
Holacracy aimed to increase transparency, reduce decision-making time, and empower employees. It organized work around specific
tasks and associated accountabilities with each role. Individuals assuming a role had complete authority to make decisions related to
that role. This approach contrasted with traditional hierarchies that pushed accountability upward and required employees to move up
the ladder for decision-making authority.
In summary, the old strategy of iQmetrix focused on creating an ultimate organization with flat decision-making structures. The adoption
of holacracy brought about a shift to a more decentralized and task-oriented organizational design, eliminating job titles and traditional
management roles.
 Page 1: from anywhere in the organization. The idea of the ultimate organization became a foundation for the evolution of the iQmetrix culture.
 Page 2: The goal of holacracy was to create an organization based on following simple rules for recognizing, articulating, and creating tasks. It replaced job titles with roles and
eliminated traditional managers.

5. The objectives of the quasi-experiment conducted by Jessica Taplow
The objectives of Jessica Taplow's quasi-experiment on performance evaluation systems were to determine which
performance management model would work best at iQmetrix and to gather data on managerial perceptions, employee
perceptions, and performance. The experiment involved implementing four different performance evaluation systems in
different parts of the organization for six months. At the end of the six-month period, data was collected to assess the
effectiveness of each system and to inform the decision on which system should be rolled out to the entire organization.
1. Relative Percentile Method (RPM): This method involved
managers assigning percentile scores to each employee's
performance based on a set of performance dimensions.
The scores were given in reference to the performance of
the employee's peers within and outside the company.
2. Qualitative Performance Feedback: This system focused on
providing employees with qualitative feedback instead of
numerical ratings. The intention was to eliminate the
demotivating factors associated with scoring and rankings
and encourage higher levels of engagement and job
performance.
3. Graphic Rating Scale: This system used a traditional
approach where employees were evaluated on various
behavioral dimensions using a rating scale. Scores ranging
from 1 to 5 were assigned to each dimension, and an overall
rating was determined based on these scores.
4. Nine-Box Grid: This system placed employees across three
levels based on their current performance (low, solid, or
high) and their future potential (a good fit at the current
level or able to move up one or more levels). Employees
were assessed and positioned within the grid based on
these two dimensions.
Four Models:

6. A) PMS DESIGN PROBLEM (indicators): Old PMS seems to have an issue with both the design and PMS
Tool problem. This can be inferred from the following case facts:
1. No accountability & fast decision making– not matching with new strategy.
2. HOLACRACY structure since design is not align with organisation goal ,egalitarian culture, empowerment
 Page 2: Organizational structure tended to push accountability upward and required people to continually
seek authority for decision-making.
 Page 2: The adoption of holacracy aimed to eliminate the negative outcomes of the old structure and
create a more egalitarian and empowered environment.

7. B) PMS TOOL PROBLEM
The traditional, stable, yearly formal assessment process was deemed inappropriate for the fluidity and capability-
focused nature of holacracy. Instead, the company sought a more responsive and developmental performance
management system.
 Page 3: "To this end, she examined employee reactions to these four different performance management models. Each of the
four models was implemented in four different parts of the organization for six months. At the end of six months, Taplow began
to collect data on managerial perceptions, employee perceptions, and performance, which would help her decide which system
should then be rolled out to the entire organization."
The OBSERVATION & FEEDBACK from manager & employee and performance metrics analysis of the quasi-experiment
conducted by Jessica Taplow (Observations are in next slide)

8. STEP 1: Calculate the AVERAGE of
each system based on responded
metrics data for Motivation, Feed
back Utility & Team Performance
respectively for given sample size.
STEP 2: Also calculate the
cumulative average –just to recheck
/compare with other tools.
Average Average Average TOTAL
PMS System Sample
size
Motivation Feed back
Utility
Team
Perf AVG
9BOX 124 3.68 3.71 3.79 3.72
GRS 78 3.70 3.72 3.78 3.73
NORATE 79 4.03 3.89 4.01 3.97
RPM 58 3.60 3.54 3.74 3.63
Total 339
OBSERVATION:
Considering the averages, NORATE seems to have the highest scores in
Motivation, Feedback Utility, and Team Performance. However, the choice of
the system to adopt depends on the specific priorities and criteria important to
the organization. For example, Team Performance is the highest priority, then
NORATE might be the preferred choice. It's essential to align the system
selection with the goals and requirements of organization.
Analysis based on spread sheet:

9. ALIGNMENT WITH ORGANISATION GOAL & NORATE / Qualitative feedback (PMS) –It refers to descriptive,
narrative, and subjective assessments of an individual's performance. Unlike quantitative feedback, which focuses on
numerical ratings or scores, qualitative feedback provides a more nuanced understanding of an employee's strengths,
weaknesses, and overall contributions. Here's a more detailed exploration of qualitative feedback in PMS:
1. Descriptive Nature
2. Subjectivity and Context
3. Holistic Assessment
4. Behavioural Examples
5. Continuous Improvement
6. Employee Development
7. Feedback Delivery
8. 360-Degree Feedback
9. Communication and Motivation
In summary, qualitative feedback adds depth and context to the performance assessment process. It contributes to a
more thorough understanding of an employee's capabilities and behaviors, facilitating meaningful discussions about
professional development and organizational goals.

10. To understand the all FOUR Method we conducted research
& collected data for SWOT analysis of each model

11. SWOT analysis of Relative Percentile Method (RPM)
Strengths:
1. Comparative Nature:
2. Motivational Tool:
3. Objectivity:
4. Differentiation:
Weaknesses:
1. Limited Focus on Absolute Performance:
2. Negative Impact on Collaboration:
3. Risk of Unhealthy Competition:
4. Inherent Subjectivity in Rankings:
Opportunities:
1. Continuous Improvement:
2. Enhanced Talent Development:
Threats:
1. Employee Dissatisfaction:
2. Potential for Gaming the System:
3. Resistance to Change:
4. Data Reliability:
Relative Percentile Method has its strengths, it also poses challenges and risks. Implementing RPM requires careful
consideration of organizational culture, effective communication, and ongoing monitoring to address potential issues
and ensure its successful integration into the performance management system.

12. SWOT analysis of Qualitative Performance Feedback
Strengths:
1. Comprehensive Assessment:
2. Personalized Development:
3. Continuous Improvement Focus:
4. Effective Communication:
Weaknesses:
1. Subjectivity and Bias:
2. Lack of Measurable Metrics:
3. Time-Consuming:
Opportunities:
1. Employee Engagement:
2. 360-Degree Feedback:
Threats:
1. Resistance to Subjectivity:
2. Ineffective Feedback Delivery:
3. Limited Data for Decision-Making:
Qualitative performance feedback has its strengths in providing a holistic view of performance, it also
faces challenges related to subjectivity and the lack of measurable metrics. Organizations implementing
qualitative feedback should be mindful of these factors and strive to create a system that balances the
benefits of rich, descriptive feedback with the need for fairness and objectivity.

13. SWOT analysis of Graphic Rating Scale
Strengths:
1. Simplicity and Ease of Use:
2. Standardization:
3. Quick Evaluation:
4. Clarity in Expectations:
Weaknesses:
1. Lack of Specificity:
2. Subjectivity in Interpretation:
3. Limited Feedback for Improvement:
Opportunities:
1. Training and Calibration:
2. Integration with Development Plans:
Threats:
1. Employee Dissatisfaction:
2. Overemphasis on Quantitative Ratings:
3. Resistance to Change:
Graphic Rating Scales offer simplicity and standardization, they also have limitations in terms of specificity and potential
subjectivity. Addressing these weaknesses and leveraging opportunities for training and integration with development
plans can enhance the effectiveness of this performance evaluation method.

14. SWOT analysis of 9 box grid method
Strengths:
1. Talent Identification and Differentiation:
2. Visual Representation:
3. Strategic Alignment:
4. Focus on Succession Planning:
Weaknesses:
1. Simplicity May Oversimplify:
2. Subjectivity in Placement:
3. Limited to Two Dimensions:
Opportunities:
1. Training and Calibration:
2. Integration with Development Plans:
Threats:
1. Employee Resistance:
2. Risk of Stereotyping:
3. Data Accuracy and Reliability:
The 9-Box Grid Method offers a visual and strategic approach to performance management but has limitations in its
simplicity and potential for subjectivity. Addressing these weaknesses and capitalizing on opportunities for training and
integration can enhance the effectiveness of this performance evaluation method.

15. THANKS

16. Strengths:
Talent Identification and Differentiation:
Visual Representation:
Strategic Alignment:
Focus on Succession Planning:
Opportunities:
Training and Calibration:
Integration with Development Plans:
Weaknesses:
Simplicity May Oversimplify:
Subjectivity in Placement:
Limited to Two Dimensions:
Threats:
Employee Resistance:
Risk of Stereotyping:
Data Accuracy and Reliability:
SWOT analysis of 9 box grid method
The 9-Box Grid Method offers a visual and strategic approach to performance management but has limitations in its
simplicity and potential for subjectivity. Addressing these weaknesses and capitalizing on opportunities for training and
integration can enhance the effectiveness of this performance evaluation method.