Anda di halaman 1dari 5


Case study

Analysis BY
John Raphael

Vitality Health
A better Corporate Performance Management System to Retain Top Talent
Vitality Health Vitality Health
Introduction Issues

Beth Williams stepped in to fill the shoes of Fred Beth’s prompt delivery of a new performance man- Issue #1: Follow the Leader and that the new achiever category encompassed 75%
Kikuchi in 2009 as the new CEO. Her primary stat- agement system only eight weeks after discovering Turnover Costs of the distribution and an 11% distribution of top
ed purpose was to “find a better way to identify and problems likely delighted Vitality’s board as well as achievers. The word “achiever” is a word associated
reward top performers in order to keep ‘A’ players in some staff, but her no-nonsense approach must have The deep industry knowledge, connections, and in- with reaching a certain level of success, but one has
their positions and accelerate company growth by also been a shock internally as she was “a notable fluence within Vitality’s top staff that voluntarily left no way of knowing who in the achiever category
attracting new top talent.” To do this, Beth created contrast from Kikuchi’s more conciliatory manage- were invaluable, and it would be impossible for their would have actually been graded as a B- or below
a new performance management team (PMET) to ment style.” The email sent to management to sim- peers not to take notice and question if they should in the previous system. This would have created the
study the existing rewards & compensation, and ply review the online guidebook of the new perfor- leave as well. “Great employees have camaraderie same strain within the organization as the previous
uncover changes that needed to be made. With over mance management system hardly created “buy-in” and influence with their co-workers, which when performance management system.
50% of the staff in Des Moines consisting of scien- within the organization, that was seen clearly in a lost, has an impact on the corporate culture.” (An-
tists and engineers, and a total R&D budget nearing recurring theme in the comments: “where was the derson, Amy) In essence, when one top R&D scien-
30% of total gross revenue in 2009; Vitality’s growth training on all these changes? I think I remember Issue #3: Abuse and Forced
tist leaves, it leads other top employees to question
depended heavily on continued human resources seeing an email but that’s about it.” Extensive train- whether or not they have a desire to leave as well. Performance Distribution
for R&D, especially due to Vitality’s focus on emerg- ing to both employees and management of the im- The turnover cost associated with this lack of reten-
ing markets and the volatility that comes along with portance of the new CPM system would have been tion amounts to around 20% “For all jobs earning Management was able to abuse the new CPM sys-
such growth. critical for it’s success if designed properly. less than $50,000 per year, or more than 40 percent tem by automatically assigning a “not rated” rank-
of U.S. jobs”. (Lucas, Suzanne) The cost of “losing an ing to employees that had been with the company
Beth discovered that the pre-2008 grading system As Vitality’s performance management system was executive is astronomical -- up to 213 percent of the less than a year. In doing so, they were able to save
of 13 grades from A to E opened the door to mana- put on hold for two years due to an upswing in the employee’s salary”. (Lucas, Suzanne) This also higher rankings for their veteran employees, thus
gerial abuses. The 2008 performance review rating economy that brought record revenue internal frus- doesn’t factor the costs of losing top staff to com- not recognizing the new hires’ performance. Since
distribution chart showed that 87% of employees trations that lingered from 2009 would have likely petitors where industry secrets can be used against new hires were not accountable for performance,
were rated between a (B) and a (C) while only a amplified. Vitality. they were likely not incentivized to participate with-
scant .005% of employees got an (A) rating. The Base salary of R&D and Science employees at in the first year; setting a precedent that hard work
Vitality was in line with industry standards, but will not be rewarded. One could also infer that at
Managers’ fear of upsetting the balance of teamwork turnover of top staff was becoming a larger issue.
Issue #2: CPM restructuring
least a small percentage of new employees were part
within their functional groups created increased We have identified six issues with the new perfor- Failure of Generation Y, whom feedback and performance
animosity and diminished the value of truly great mance management system and its implementation. based coaching were essential to their growth and
employees. One of the lab scientists described his Beth’s intentions were sincere in her attempt to retention. In conjunction with these issues, a hand-
discontent by saying, “I cracked the code for the restructure the performance management system ful of managers even elected to give uniform ratings
latest generation of Ocucream and what do I get? A
“I cracked the code for by simplifying grading to four main categories, but to their teams, pressuring HR to force employees
pat on the back and a 2% raise. If you go down the the latest generation of unfortunately her delivery fell short, this is not un- into the distribution curve further amplifying prob-
hall you’ll find two guys who get 5% just for show- common within companies that try to implement a
ing up.” Furthermore, research scientists who had
Ocucream and what do CPM system. The co-creator of the balanced score-
lems within the organization.

been leaving the company voluntarily had averaged I get? A pat on the back card, David Norton, found that “9 out of 10 compa-
nies fail to implement their strategies” referring to
5.1 annual R&D breakthroughs, an average of 1.4 and a 2% raise. Corporate Performance Management; a staggering
breakthroughs over the annual rate in 2009 of 3.7.
figure considering the amount of human and capital
resources available to most large organizations in-
cluding Vitality.
Vitality Health Vitality Health
Issues Analysis & Recommendations

Issue #4: The Either/Or expressed discontent with others getting rewarded As Vitality looks at revising their newer corporate company’s strategy (referring to Corporate Per-
just for showing up. The confusing compensation performance management system, they should formance Management). Through his extensive
Transformation Lens
system didn’t focus on team goals and allowed for follow a successful model being implemented with- research he found that “strategy is rarely commu-
compensation regardless of departmental shortcom- in many organizations: the Five Key Principles of nicated in terms that relate to peoples everyday
The division of those who had a positive experience ings. This lack of meaningful performance based Corporate Performance Management. This will give objectives, roles, and responsibilities.” (Paladino,
with Beth’s newer performance management system goals tied to compensation was a key reason for the much needed structure to Vitality’s failing system Bob pg 12)
and those who had negative experiences created and answer many of the issues presented.
voluntary resignations of top R&D staff.
a division or an “Either / Or” transformation lens Next, by cascading and managing the strategy
(Jacobs, Brinkerhoff, Johnson pg 3). As stated in the Principle #1: (or what we will refer to as the wheel) through what is called the balanced scorecard as
Change Champion’s Fieldguide, where management Issue #6: Annual Reviews To Establish and Deploy a Corporate Performance stated in Principle #3 of the wheel, the organiza-
and employees was surely divided into two camps; Management (CPM) Office and Officer was loose- tion will have “a way to ‘connect the dots’ between
one camp believed that Beth’s particular change Lastly, an issue, existed with the old system and ly created by Beth Williams with her performance the various components of strategic planning and
was truly vital to the organization, and the other carried over into the new, was performance reviews evaluation team or PMET. James Hoffman will need management, meaning that there will be a visible
believed that if they make the changes the company were only performed once a year, as opposed to to structure the current PMET as an official CPM connection between the projects and programs that
will lose sight of what made it successful. quarterly or monthly, coinciding with the company’s office. James should appoint a co-chair of the CPM people are working on, the measurements being
annual goal setting process. Management felt that office that is well versed in the language and struc- used to track success, the strategic objectives the
Issue #5: Compensation and the system “made it more difficult to discuss per- ture of corporate performance management that can organization is trying to accomplish and the mis-
formance with employees because the yearly review assist in restructuring the PMET, addressing Issue sion, vision and strategy of the organization.” (How
Incentives for performance
process was tied so closely with merit increases”. #2: CPM Restructuring Failure. As stated in the five to Create a Balanced Scorecard) addressing Issue #1:
A recurring theme among anonymous employee
comments is that with the old system of perfor- key principles best practice summary, one or more Follow the Leader and Turnover Cost.
mance management employees were at least rated of the CPM team members needs to have “deep in-
and compensated against their job requirements dustry knowledge to help guide resolution of project
and not against each other. Beth’s new CPM system issues”. (Paladino, Bob pg 34) The office will also
was designed to “hold employees accountable for need to “own or substantially influence the portfolio
their actions” but failed as top performing employ- of CPM processes enterprise-wide, with each office
ees CPM practitioner possessing deep expertise in at
least one methodology.” (Paladino, Bob pg 34)
Communicate Strategy
Strategy Plans By refreshing and re-communicating the strategy
through management and employee training, the
Strategy Maps

entire organization will be able to understand the

Partner with Board,
Executive Team and CFO
Manage and Cascade and Manage vision that Beth is seeking for continued growth,
Leverage PRINCIPLE 1: Strategy addressing issue #4: The Either/Or Transformation
Knowledge Establish and Deply Corporate
Performance Management Lens. Vision barrier research by David Norton
Best Practices,
(CPM) Office and Officer Balanced Scorecard
Organizational underscores this problem stating that only 5% of
Management Alignment,
Personal Rewards company’s employees fully understand their
Partner with IT
PRINCIPLE 4: Partner with Executive and
Improve Performance Management Teams

Customer Programs
Process Improvement
(Six Sigma, Lean)
Partner with Marketing, Sales and
Vitality Health Vitality Health
Analysis & Recommendations Analysis & Recommendations

Creating performance-based expectations of applied to the scorecard and reviewed by manage- Many recent studies point to money being far from
management and employees within Vitality will
ultimately set employees at ease regarding what is
TVA TACTICS ment to ensure the right data points are continually
being collected.
a primary motivator on all levels of organizations,
but it’s summarized best with the following quote
expected of them, thus matching Vitality’s original “Emotional sources of motivation are more power-
vision “Outer beauty can only be achieved as inner Principle four and five of The Five Key Principles of ful, and they are best conveyed informally in an or-
harmony is reached” to the corporate strategy. This Annual business plan development cycle Corporate Performance Management, to Improve ganization through the respect of peers, the admira-
will also allow Beth and her management teams Performance, and Manage and Leverage knowledge tion of subordinates, the approval of one’s personal
to thoughtfully measure performance based on Monthly reporting of measurement results respectively will need to be constantly checked by network and community and the like”. (Katzenbach,
companywide vision and provide a new system for the CPM office. As stated by Bill Kolz, the senior Jon R., and Zia Kahn)
Online tools that allow employees to view not
performance payout that does not include a confus- only their personal measures but all the compa- program manager for TVA, “Selecting the right
ing forced distribution that only values individual ny measures measures is challenging. Sometimes despite our best
performance addressing Issue #3: Abuse and Forced efforts to rationally select a measure, we discover as
Performance Distribution. The Tennessee Valley Quarterly strategic reviews by management the year progresses it drives the wrong behavior.”
Authority case study in Five Key principles of Cor- (Paladino, Bob pg 179) The constant tweaking to “Selecting the right mea-
Dedicated corporate-level resources responsible
porate Performance Management for improving the measurement process, and develop the right behaviors as well as “capturing sures is challenging. Some-
benchmarking best practices. and reusing enterprise-wide intellectual property
highlighted the success of performance-based pay- to leverage the companies best minds, best practic- times despite our best ef-
out addresses Issue #5: Compensation and Incen-
tives for Performance. Tennessee Valley Authority,
es, and innovations” (Paladino, Bob pg 35) are all
things that the CPM office will need to be responsi-
forts to rationally select a
the nation’s largest public power producer, imple- Number three can translate the Balanced scorecard ble for. measure, we discover as the
mented what was called Winning Performance into an online tool that employees and managers
payout. “Team incentive is paid in addition to any can access anytime, and can be expanded upon to It also should be noted that Beth Williams and year progresses it drives the
monetary award received through annual perfor- include elements of “Microfeedback”. This perfor- PMET should be aware of the correct balance of job wrong behavior.”
mance reviews. Employees below the executive level mance based feedback is limited to 140 characters motivations of R&D staff, as opposed to sales and
have no pay at risk. When performance targets are and can be either given or requested allowing em- marketing staff. In the case of R&D and scientists,
achieved, employees receive their annual pay in- ployees to “hear-quickly-from broad set of people where work can be extremely complex or creative,
creases plus whatever incentives exist with the win- and find out whether they were on the right track” bonuses and other forms of variable pay for per-
ning performance program” (Paladino, Bob pg 179) (Meister, Jeanne C., and Karie Willyerd ) formance can largely undermine employees’ work
The combination of strategic business unit goals ethic.” (Neely, A. D. pg 440) This phenomenon was
and stretch goals (numbers above the target) as well
as pro-rated performance goals if business groups
Beth’s goals of creating a more nimble and competi-
tive global organization were not cascaded down the
coined the “crowding-out theory” by the distin- “Extrinsic motivation is
guished Professor of Economics at the University
fall somewhere in the middle, was a drastic mea- organization and instead, she focused on the symp- of Zurich. Intrinsic motivation or value for it’s own sufficient when the work
surable improvement on the company’s scorecard tom of poor R&D retention. A newly appointed co- sake versus extrinsic motivation or satisfying needs
and success. TVA achieved the ultimate goal for the chair of CPM will be able to continually adjust the indirectly through monetary compensation, de-
is routinized and the
Winning Performance Program by having “employ- Balanced Scorecard and align the company vision pends largely on the category that employees fall performance is easy to
ees see a clear line of sight between their actions and with performance goals as well as understand and into. In the case of some segments of staff within
the purpose of the organization.” (Paladino, Bob measure barriers to success. The performance data Vitality “Extrinsic motivation is sufficient when the measure”
pg 179) TVA also implemented the following five for the Balanced Scorecard has already been collect- work is routinized and the performance is easy to
tactics that would be highly valuable to Vitality and ed by Vitality’s PMET with input from management measure” (Neely, A. D. pg 442) a theory deemed
address both Issue #6: Annual Reviews, and Issue simply needing to be “The Price Effect”.
#5: Compensation and Incentives for Performance.
Vitality Health Vitality Health
Conclusion References

The underlying problem within Vitality’s perfor- Anderson, Amy Rees. “Great Employees Are Not Replaceable.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 13 Feb. 2013. Web. 19
mance management system despite record growth Oct. 2013. <>.
will lead to a continued loss of market share. Many
leading companies are faced with a similar fate as “Balanced Scorecard.” VectorStudy RSS. N.p., 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <
they often “produce incremental improvements and ment-theories/balanced-scorecard>. (CHART)
follow their core technologies to obsolescence and
obscurity, while companies that are able to produce “How to Create a Balanced Scorecard.” How to Create a Balanced Scorecard. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2013.
technologically radical innovations become the <>.
new leaders.” (Mitchell, 1989) If Vitality Enterprises
successfully reorganizes the PMET into a depart- Jacobs, Robert, Lynnea Brinkerhoff, and Barry Johnson. “Whole System Transformation Through a Polarity
ment and replaces, much of the current perfor- Lens: An Idea Whose Time Has Come.” Discovering the Leader in You XBUS 6160, Fall 2013 (n.d.): n. pag.
mance management system with a proven balanced Print.
scorecard methodology, they will surely continue Katzenbach, Jon R., and Zia Kahn. “Money Is Not The Best Motivator.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 6 Apr. 2010.
to prosper despite market volatility. It is critical Web. 20 Oct. 2013. <
that Vitality moves towards rewarding individuals ees.html>.
based on measurable performance, as well as in-
clude team-based incentives. The animosity among Lucas, Suzanne. “How Much Does It Cost Companies to Lose Employees?” CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 21 Nov.
staff members regarding current compensation 2012. Web. 19 Oct. 2013. <
should be immediately addressed and replaced with panies-to-lose-employees/>.Originally published on Moneywatch
a system similar to TVA’s “Winning Performance
Payout” where online tools for monthly reporting Meister, Jeanne C., and Karie Willyerd. “Mentoring Millennials.” Harvard Business Review (2010): 1-4. Print.
and measurement are available in addition to a
dedicated CPM staff assisting in benchmarking best Mitchell, W. (1989). Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents’ entry into emerging industrial
practices. These changes alongside quarterly reviews subfields. Administrative Science Quartery , 34, 208-30.
replacing annual will go a long way to improving
morale and retention within Vitality. With time and Neely, A. D. “20/ Does Pay for Performance Really Motivate Employees?” Business Performance Measurement:
the right performance management team in place to Unifying Theories and Integrating Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2007. 442. Print.
follow the Balanced Scorecard methodology, Vitali-
ty should finally be able to realize an inter-organiza- Paladino, Bob. “3/Research And The Five Key CPM Principles.” Five Key Principles of Corporate Performance
tional harmony in line with the external mission of Management. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007. 34. Print.
the company.