Performance Management White Paper by Hedda Bird (3C)

Turning strategy
into action
on the front line
Transforming the purpose and practice
of Performance Management
White Paper 2018

FOREWORD:
The broad definition of
performance management
can be summarised as an
‘activity and set of processes
that aim to maintain
and improve employee
performance in line with an
organisation’s objectives’.
For a long time, two things
have struck me as wrong
about this summary – the
focus on process and an
aim merely to maintain the
status quo. Why would you
want to strive to remain
where you are?
Fifteen years ago I set out to turn that
definition on its head.
Working in the corporate world meant I
had seen, and experienced, first-hand the
lacklustre results produced by traditional
performance tools. Annual appraisals
that involved nothing more than a chat
and reassurance that the employee was
doing a good job and C level executives
fixated on task delivery rather than
behaviours, values and competencies.
Improved performance was the last
thing many of these organisations were
achieving. UK organisations, and more
specifically their HR Directors, had a
major problem on their hands.
As a trained mathematician, and MBA
graduate, I was very good at solving
complex problems. And the problem of
performance management, or rather its
delivery of mediocre results, was one that
presented (at least to me) a matter worthy
of real thought. I decided to challenge
the corporate perception of performance
management, to re-write the rules and
re-define what Performance Management
is, and crucially, what it is NOT.
I knew that for performance management
to work I needed to re-engineer
the approach so that it focused on
transforming strategy into action.
Organisations needed to lift performance
Hedda Bird MBA
Managing Director and Founder,
3C

management from the realm of process
into the reality of achievable, tangible
results. Over the years I and my team at
3C have created a template for a radically
new model for managing performance:
one that meets the needs of employees
and leaders whilst driving the business
onwards and upwards.
Over the last fifteen years I have applied
this model time and again, refining and
developing our approach with clients
that include major public and private
sector organisations both in the UK
and across the world. Together we
have developed practical yet creative
solutions to what has been HR’s
biggest headache.
Our most recent innovation has
been to transform how organisations
visualise performance management
activities through the ground-breaking
Performance Management Canvas. The
canvas brings to life the human, social
and emotional context within which
employees and organisations manage
performance. You can read more about it
in section two of this white paper.
People from all areas of business have
often asked me to write down what informs
our programmes, and this white paper
is my response. It brings together what
I and my colleagues have learned from
academic research with our own hands-
on experience implementing successful
Performance Management solutions.
The paper is also a chance to create an
authoritative reference document to
help organisations think through the real
challenges of designing and embedding
an approach to managing performance
that works. This is a much better approach
than falling back on repeated doses of
management training that rarely make a
long-term diﬀerence.
Finally, this document is a reflection of my
values and that of the business I founded
fifteen years ago, 3C.
Clarity – The paper presents a
clear analysis and summary of the
essential academic research and case
study evidence about performance
management. The document is fully
referenced if you want to explore the
topics further.
Creativity – In sharing our new thinking
about performance management,
informed by our deep understanding
of the research, we hope to enable and
encourage creative thinking in you and
your teams.
Communication – At the heart of
performance management is a
relationship between an individual and
their manager. Our innovative work on
performance management puts this
relationship centre stage, recognising
that it is shared purpose that drives
performance, not exhortations to ‘work
harder’. Everything we do leads to
improving the quality of communication
across an organisation to create shared
meaning and purpose.
So enjoy the journey, take what you need,
make use of the ideas and models you
find and feel free to share your thoughts
and experiences with us.
Turning strategy into action on the front line | 2018 03

Turning strategy into action on the front line | 201804
Contents
05 Executive Summary
Section 1: Turning strategy into action on the front line – the research
08 Performance management – a matter of life and death?
09 Is performance management broken?
10 What’s the problem?
10 – Too tactical, too complex
10 – Traditional problem-solving techniques don’t help
11 – Focus on strategic purpose
12 Strategic HR leadership – the opportunity presented by performance management
12 – What do businesses want from their HR leaders?
13 – Strategy, performance and the HRD
14 Leaders, strategy implementation and performance
15 Employees own their performance
17 Managers and performance management
17 – Managers, performance and action
18 – Managers, motivation and engagement
18 – High performance behaviours
20 Performance management and business strategy
21 Conclusion
Section 2: A strategic approach to designing performance management with purpose
23 Application of the theory in practice
25 – Implementation
26 Case study 1: Performance management to support vision and strategy
27 Case study 2: Performance management builds collaboration and customer focus for super-smart analysts
28 Appendices
28 – Appendix 1: What about poor performance?
28 – Appendix 2: The role of reward
28 – Appendix 3: The role of technology
29 References
30 What our clients say
31 Our clients

Performance Management has risen to the top of the agenda in
many organisations, driven by a combination of two apparently
separate issues. First, much current practice of performance
management is widely disliked and frequently fails to create
value. Second, many organisations are struggling to implement
organisational strategy effectively, yet see there is an urgent need
to deliver a significant improvement in areas such as productivity,
growth and innovation.
Executive summary
This paper brings together a) the research examining
performance management processes, b) the research
revealing that organisations are far weaker at implementing
strategy than they are at developing it, c) the research showing
that CEOs and business leaders want and need HR Directors to
use every tool available to turn business strategy into action
on the front line.
For the strategic HRD, performance management offers both
a high-profile platform and the greatest opportunity to impact
the business.
Our paper argues that successful performance management
needs to form a deep understanding of purpose. Why manage
performance in the first place? What must performance
management achieve? Why do employees choose to work
here? What is the employee experience they seek?
In section 1 we review the evidence for what actually impacts
performance at the employee, manager and organisation
level. We show that shared purpose underpins almost every
aspect of high performance.
We see how to transform a set of technical, bureaucratic
processes (useful though some of these might individually be)
into a coherent approach that:
• motivates and enables employees to take ownership of
their performance
• replaces the pressure to be a ‘magic manager’ with a deep
understanding of what actually creates high performance
and how managers can support it
• enables leaders to actually implement the strategies they
have spent such effort developing.
In section 2 we explore how to apply the theory in practice.
We show how our ground-breaking Performance Management
Canvas transforms the way organisations see performance
management. The Canvas reveals that high performance
comes from consistently aligning employee motivations with
business performance drivers, not a cycle of bureaucratic
activity. Visualisation enables everyone to see ‘what makes for
high performance here’.

So, enjoy what is here, think
big, focus on purpose, and make
direct use of both the big picture
tools and the tactical details.
This white paper will help strategic HR leaders replace stale
debates about ‘ratings, rankings and appraisals’ with a diﬀerent
kind of conversation. We show that conversations can be future-
focused, and designed to shape a deeper understanding across the
workforce about what it means to own their performance. This will
result in greater engagement and satisfaction for employees and
better results for the organisation.

Turning strategy
into action
on the front line
– the research
SECTION 1:

He linked hospital performance data to output from NHS staff
surveys. He showed that the more staff who worked with
shared goals, or who worked in teams where the success of the
team depended on everyone in it, the greater the reduction in
patient mortality rates.[1]
Michael West’s comprehensive and detailed work led to a huge
wave of interest across the NHS. Many hospitals looked again
at how they managed performance at every level.
We think his findings are so powerful that when we run
performance workshops we summarise his work by stating:
‘Good performance management stops people dying’. It makes
people think.
There are two critical insights from this work:
• Good performance management genuinely makes a
difference to performance. You’d be amazed at how many
leaders believe that performance management makes no
difference at all.
• When organisational leaders see that a fresh approach
to managing performance enables them to deliver their
strategy, then they want it to be successful. They’ll give it
their buy-in, and give HRDs the support they need to make
performance management successful.
Too often we see organisations bogged down in ratings, goals
andannualappraisals.Intherestofthiswhitepaperwewillshow
how performance management can be an enabler of change
and an effective way to deliver your organisation’s strategy.
We may not all be saving lives every day, but we can become
effective performers in a high performing organisation, working in
a way that is much more fulfilling than ‘just doing our job’.
Ten years ago, a researcher and academic then based at Aston Business School wrote
a paper that made startling claims. Michael West demonstrated that a reduction in
mortality rates – the number of patients dying in the hospital – was correlated with the
quality of appraisals experienced by the staff.
Performance management
– a matter of life and death?
‘Good performance management
stops people dying.’

The eye-catching headlines are only part of the story. More
than three quarters of organisations have either revised their
performance management systems in the last 18 months,
or plan to do so soon.[2]
Just 14 per cent of organisations see
their performance management as fit for purpose. That’s
extraordinary when you stop to think about it. It suggests that
performance management as it is currently understood is not
delivering on any level.
The conclusion from Deloitte’s Global Human Capital Trend
2014 research was that ‘only 8 per cent of companies report that
their performance management process drives high levels of
value, while 58 per cent said it is not an eﬀective use of time.’
‘Only 8 per cent of companies
report that their performance
management process drives high
levels of value, while 58 per cent said
it is not an eﬀective use of time.’
Yet Michael West showed in his NHS research that it doesn’t
have to be like this; that performance management can be one
of the most powerful levers available to deliver organisational
results. Getting it right is critical, doing it badly is not an option.
A deeper understanding of the problem is needed.
CEOs of global businesses have begun to speak publicly about fresh approaches to
performance management. Managing performance has moved from HR operations to the
executive suite as shown by the following headlines:
Is performance
management broken?
‘Accenture will get rid of annual performance reviews’
Washington Post July 2015
‘Why Adobe Abolished the Annual Performance Review and You Should Too’
Business Insider April 2014
‘Performance Management is Broken’
Deloitte, quoted in Harvard Business Review April 2015
‘Don’t Kill Performance Reviews Yet’
Harvard Business Review November 2016

What’s the problem?
The performance management problem has been known about for a long time. In 2004,
the researchers Armstrong and Baron in Managing Performance wrote that:
‘Performance appraisal has a reputation as a punitive, top-down control
device, and unloved system. Performance management is a holistic,
total approach to engaging everyone in the organisation in a continuous
process, to improve everyone and their performance, and thereby the
performance of the whole organisation’.[4]
A 2016 CIPD Research Report explained that performance
reviews were to be seen as: ‘overly time-consuming and
energy sapping; disappointing and ultimately demotivating
for individual employees; divisive and not conducive to co-
operation and effective team-working; and most damningly
not effective drivers of performance’.[5]
We see many organisations stuck in a continuous cycle of training,
replacing software systems, more management training, changes
to processes, and yet more management training. Perhaps this
is a cycle you recognise? If all this activity was having a positive
effect then satisfaction with performance management would be
much greater than the research suggests.
Too tactical, too complex
In many organisations the purpose and value of performance
management is now lost in a mass of competing priorities,
different philosophies and management styles, rapidly changing
strategies, market pressures and technological innovations.
The CIPD report cited above recommended: ‘Introducing
some clear water between assessments that inform pay and
promotions and those that help employees improve should
make performance management a far smoother, more
productive and less fraught process’.[6]
From a decade of work in the field we see that performance
management is a catch-all process for far too many tactical
interventions. These may include managing variable pay,
identifying high performers, dealing with poor performers and
building capability. All of these activities may be useful. But
none of them warrant the levels of complexity and bureaucracy
commonly associated with managing performance.
Traditional problem-solving techniques
don’t help
While the data shows that for many organisations performance
management is broken, the typical approach to fixing it is not
much help either. We often see organisations using a traditional
problem-solving technique like Root Cause Analysis to discover
which piece of performance management is broken. The
organisation attempts to mend the specific ‘piece’ accompanied
(inevitably) by more manager training. Sound familiar?
The research shows that just changing one piece of the overall
performance management process may not create the desired
results, as the following examples show:
• ‘Let’s remove all performance ratings across the
organisation’. It seems like a simple idea, but it isn’t.
The consultancy CEB Global reported that a significant
proportion of organisations removing ratings had found
overall performance dropped. They also discovered that
other organisations found performance improved when
ratings were removed, but only when certain conditions
were in place. The conditions were not the same in each
organisation.[7]

• ‘Goal alignment’. Some research revealed that in the
highest performing companies, 46 per cent of employees’
goals were specifically aligned with the company goals, but
this figure fell to only 18 per cent in the companies that were
not performing well.[8]
That research is often used to justify
more training for managers to help them set better goals.
Yet most managers in major organisations (high
performing or otherwise) have been taught how to write
SMART goals for decades. Why do the training and the
mantra that ‘goal setting is the best solution,’ rarely work?
More recent research suggests that the typical SMART goal
is not a lot of use for the cognitively complex work that
is so typical of many of today’s organisations.[9]
Does this
mean we should abandon goals or not?
• The ‘agile organisation’. Forbes Magazine published
a paper in 2013 arguing that the real issue facing
organisations was the relationship people have with
technology, and that the answer for performance
management was for technology to be more agile.[10]
It may
well be that for some organisations, agility (whatever that
means in practice) is the over-riding driver of success. In
which case, technology that supports agility may be a good
idea. But a world-weary manager might point out that if
this article were written today, the word ‘agile’ might well
be replaced with ‘collaborative’.
• The ‘annual appraisal’. The cry ‘let’s ditch annual
appraisals in favour of regular feedback and coaching’ is a
call we hear often. It is an unhelpful debate since the two
are not mutually exclusive.[11]
Focus on strategic purpose
So, if mending different pieces of performance management
is not going to work, what does the research say about how
we should consider the overall performance management
challenge?
A Harvard Business Review article suggested that the
pressure to re-think performance management was a result of
organisations changing their strategic priorities. In advanced
economies, argued the authors, there was less need for
individual accountability and more need for development,
agility and shorter-term targets. Teamwork and collaboration
– rather than individual performance – were to be the new
watchwords.[12]
There are a few examples of organisations that have found
a different way – often after many attempts at ‘mending the
problems’ and sometimes after major organisational crisis
or change. The common denominator to their success is that
they had a purpose – they knew, or discovered, what business
outcome they wanted from performance management and
they transformed their approach to deliver it.
Microsoft reported that they had ‘tinkered with their
performance management for over a decade’ before finally
re-thinking the whole thing.[13]
The company recognised that
their previous performance management had focussed on
continuous improvement and decided instead to re-work its
approach to one that encouraged innovation. It removed all
annual goals for staff and replaced them with three simple
measures of impact common to all employees. Microsoft also
introduced three ‘check-ins’ a year to keep what they knew to
be performance drivers high on the agenda.
Yorkshire & Clydesdale Bank took the opportunity of
a management buy out to re-think what performance
management should be delivering for the organisation.
[14]
With a strategic ambition to give customers a seamless
experience, it changed performance management to focus on
collaborative working and ‘joining things up’ for the customer.
One result, (amongst other changes) was that all individual
goals were replaced by team performance goals or metrics.
What these approaches have in common is a specific
strategic purpose for managing performance. This is quite
different to a generalised ambition to be a ‘high performing
organisation’. Instead, the successful approach digs deep into
what specifically high performance looks like here, in this
organisation, which is where the HRD can take the
strategic lead.
Key takeaways
Competing tactical purposes
have created complicated,
unpopular performance
management with limited
value
Strategic priorities requiring
agility, shorter term targets
and more collaboration are
driving the need for a change
in performance management
Traditional problem solving
has not ‘fixed’ the problems
Successful approaches to
transforming performance
management focus on
strategic purpose

Strategic HR leadership –
the opportunity presented
by performance management
What do businesses want
from their HR leaders?
HRDs have long been concerned about their relevance and
influence around the board room table. Fundamentally, CEOs
want the HR function to enable business strategy not just
execute HR processes without a real understanding of business
context. Major changes in both the public and private sectors
mean HRDs need to develop a wider range of business skills
with a focus on transformation, productivity, growth and
innovation.[15]
In other words, the strategic role for HRDs must be to turn
strategy into action on the front line.
‘...the strategic role for HRDs
must be to turn strategy into
action on the front line.’
At Henley Business School, Nick Holley identified what CEOs
really want from HRDs. ‘It is,’ he said, ‘your support in enabling
the business strategy, building the people and organisational
capability to deliver the business strategy. Indeed, what they
[CEOs] value most in an HR Director is the director bit, less the
HR bit.’[16]
The consultancy McKinsey & Co asked CEOs and their direct
reports: ‘Do you believe HR could be a high impact business
partner?’ Eighty per cent of the corporate oﬀicers said it was
critical or very important that HR be in that role. However, only
12 per cent believed they were actually playing that role within
their respective organisations.[17]
Leadership development company Zenger Folkman collected
360-degree feedback data on 2,187 (mostly US based) HR
leaders. Its benchmarking study of HR functions showed that
‘world-class HR organisations’ show a dramatically greater
ability to work with the business and deal with the human
capital aspects of planning and executing business strategy.
SOURCE: ZENGER/FOLKMAN
Competency gaps in Human Resources
Average percentile score
Establishes stretch goals
Solves problems and analyses issues
Develops strategic perspective
Connects to the outside world
25th 50th 75th
Top quartile HR leaders Other HR leaders

Overall, Zenger Folkman found some of the best leaders
in the organisation were in the HR function. The company
reported that the four competencies most consistently
separating the top quartile HR leaders from other HR leaders
are 1) establishing stretch goals, 2) solving problems and
analysing issues, 3) developing a strategic perspective, and 4)
connecting to the outside world.
If we look at the challenges of performance management in
relation to these four competencies, it is clear that creative ways
of thinking about problems and issues, a strategic perspective
and a deep understanding of how the organisation competes in
the world are all vital to a successful change. In our experience,
the HRDs most able to lead effective transformations of
performance management are those with the strongest
strategic perspective.
‘...the HRDs most able to lead
effective transformations of
performance management are
those with the strongest strategic
perspective.’
Strategy, performance and the HRD
So, performance management offers both a threat and a huge
opportunity to the HRD.
• Fail to be an enabler of strategy, and HR is seen as a tactical
function, lacking genuine contribution to the top table
• Develop and implement an effective lever to turn strategy
into action, and the HRD becomes a critical member of the
top team
‘The opportunity – and its
importance can’t be over-
stressed – is to design
performance management into
the heart of an organisation.’
The opportunity – and its importance can’t be over-stressed
– is to design performance management into the heart of
an organisation. It is the HRD who leads the transformation,
enabling managers to create action from strategy and
employees to take ownership of their performance.
No other aspect of the HRD’s role has the potential for such
strategic impact across the entire organisation.
The rewards are great for HRDs who make the transition from
managing HR processes into value creation. Those making
the transition will become the high impact partners to the
business and the board that so many CEOs want and need.
Delivering the transformation of performance management
so that it turns strategy into action on the front line requires a
clear understanding of the role of three distinct groups:
• The senior leadership team devising strategy and leading
the business
• The managers implementing the strategy
• The workforce executing the strategy as action on a daily
basis
It is to the needs of these groups that we now turn.
Key takeaways
CEOs want HRDs to become
high impact business partners
World class HR leaders take
a consistently more strategic
approach than others
Transforming performance
management gives HRDs the
greatest opportunity to create
value for the organisation.

Leaders, strategy implementation
and performance
In 2005, Robert Kaplan and David Norton (creators of the
Balanced Scorecard) published global research suggesting
that 95 per cent of a company’s employees were unaware of,
or did not understand, their company’s strategy. Their surveys
also found that 67 per cent of HR organisations were not
aligned with business unit and corporate strategies, and that
HR departmental plans did not support corporate or business-
unit strategic initiatives.[20]
In 2017, a study of 1,000 diﬀerent organisations by K. Shimizu
(University of Zurich) found that 60 per cent of employees
thought that their organisations were weak at executing
strategy and that only 37 per cent of employees had a clear
understanding of what the organisation was trying to achieve
and why.[21]
It is no wonder that CEOs want support from the HRD to
ensure strategy is both understood and implemented.
In other words, the answer to the question ‘why are we doing
performance management?’ is ‘because we need to deliver
strategy on the front line’. Delivering strategy is far more important
than arguing over a bonus pot, succession planning or dealing
with poor performers, important though these issues are.
We see that once leaders have realised the full implication of
‘good performance management stops people dying’ in the
context of the NHS, then their desire for an equivalent lever in
their own organisation pushes them to commit the time and
resources necessary for the transformation.
The research we’ve seen suggests businesses and leaders are far better at
developing company strategy than they are at implementing it. There is much more
published research concentrating on strategy development than there is on strategy
implementation. This may be because strategy formulation is seen as sexy and important
while strategy implementation is seen as dull and functional. This perception of strategy
implementation may be a significant part of the problem!
‘Some estimates suggest that organisations fail to implement up to
70 per cent of their new strategies.’[19]
Key takeaways
Up to 70% of business strategy
is not eﬀectively implemented
CEOs need support from the
HRD to ensure successful
strategy implementation
Successful performance
management goes beyond
aligning goals and becomes
shared purpose

After looking at the role of the HRD and senior leaders, conventional reviews of how to
refresh performance management typically turn to the role of the manager. We take a
different view. Our position is that performance management should be primarily about
the employee. Senior executives in organisations have for years distracted themselves
by assuming that ‘management’ means that managers are responsible for employee
performance. Our work with clients starts from the position that the only person who can
ultimately change and improve their performance is the employee themselves.
‘The realisation for employees is that: ‘I own my performance and my
manager manages it.’
Employees own
their performance
Fortunately, the motivations of individual performers, and
the characteristic behaviours of high performers, have been
well researched over many years. While there may be cultural
differences, the underlying concepts vary little across very
diverse workforces. The motivations are summed up well in
management author Dan Pink’s book, Drive: The Surprising Truth
About What Motivates Us.[22]
He describes the motivations as:
• The desire for a shared purpose – why are we doing this,
why am I giving this my time and talent?
• The desire for mastery – can I excel, am I recognised for
being great at my role, being an expert, a specialist? What
can I do to get there or stay here?
• The desire for autonomy – how much control and influence
can I have over what I do and how I do it?
These motivations are well known in HRD circles, as they
derive from long standing, highly respected research published
by Maslow, Herzberg and others.[23]
The ideas have had
currency since the 1950s and yet they are rarely included in
performance management strategies. In fact, much of current
performance management practice has the effect of damaging
or undercutting these motivations.
We see that in many cases the drivers of performance have
been reduced to technical bureaucratic process:
• Purpose is reduced to ‘alignment with the strategy’
• Mastery is reduced to meeting capability requirements
and possibly giving further development for employees
identified as ‘high potential’
• Autonomy is frequently reduced to an overwhelming mix
of KPIs, SLAs, targets, business plans and only occasionally
alleviated by effective goals or objectives
The over-use of process to replace managing performance can
have unintentional consequences.
Manufacturer 3M has a century-long history of innovation, with
the company’s Post-it® note being one of the most well-known
products ever made. The Post-it® note, developed in the 1980s
is known for being an initial product failure, it was ‘the glue
that wouldn’t stick’. At the time product developers were given
freedom to explore their apparently unsuccessful glue further.
After 2005 research and development efficiency processes
meant that inventors were no longer given adequate time to
tinker with products before having to demonstrate successful
commercialisation. ‘We were letting, I think, the [efficient]
process get in the way of doing the actual inventing,’ said Dr.
Larry Wendling, staff vice president at 3M’s Corporate Research
Laboratory. [24]

A 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers CEO survey[25]
summarised
the quandary of process over purpose. CEOs complained
that: ‘Those in middle management… found innovation
disruptive to their day-to-day activities and felt it got in the
way of running an efficient operation – which is what they
were paid to do’. Too much performance management is
designed to reward the wrong behaviours for the wrong
reasons and with damaging outcomes.
What can be done to get away from the technical bureaucratic
process and back to the highly motivational intentions of
performance management? At 3C we have observed that few
organisations recognise the conflict between the motivating
ideals and the bureaucratic approach.
Organisation performance is positively impacted by raising
levels of employee engagement.[26]
provides a highly effective way to raise individual engagement
by enabling people to take greater ownership of their
performance.
Those who do take greater ownership develop a deeper
understanding of what the organisation needs them to do,
and the behaviours it values.
In our experience once employees start to take ownership of
their performance, we see behaviours such as:
• Seeking feedback on their performance
• Engaging with guidance and coaching from managers
and colleagues
• Thinking more widely about better ways to achieve the
required results
• Developing a deeper understanding of how the
organisation delivers its purpose
• Taking greater responsibility for their development and career
• Learning more from others
Employees exhibiting these performance-improving
behaviours rarely need their activity micro managing.
Conversations with these employees are very different to
conventional appraisals with their focus on ratings, rankings
and annual goal setting. In our work with clients we help to
develop these behaviours across the workforce to deliver the
organisation’s strategy.
Key takeaways
The only person who
can improve employee
performance is ultimately
the individual employee
Mastery, autonomy and
purpose are the known
motivators of performance
Too often performance
management reduces the
motivators to bureaucratic
processes, reducing their value
Empowering employees
to take ownership of their
performance reflects reality
– managers cannot force
performance improvement,
employees have to choose to
engage
When employees take
ownership of their performance,
conversations can be
forward looking, focused on
understanding how to improve,
rather than ‘what good looks like’
‘Too much performance
management is designed to
reward the wrong behaviours
for the wrong reasons and with
damaging outcomes.’

The dimensions of managing for
performance improvement
Most organisations want next year’s results to be better than they were this year.
Managers and performance
management
When organisations say they want managers to ‘manage
performance’ what they really mean is they want managers to
‘improve performance’. For example, in the public sector there
might be a drive to increase service user satisfaction, while in
the private sector a company might want to grow revenue.
Organisations often assume that technically skilled and
knowledgeable managers will know how to deliver the
strategy. In practice, managers rarely have the opportunity to
learn how to do it. A great underwriting manager, for example,
doesn’t necessarily know how to grow an underwriting
business. A great software engineer doesn’t necessarily know
how to improve customer satisfaction.
In our work with clients we see that most performance
management training is focused on motivation. It overlooks
the critical need to learn what actions to take to deliver the
organisation’s strategy. We have created the following matrix
to analyse course content. We use the analysis to ensure
training will prepare managers to deliver strategy.
In our experience, most performance management training
scores HIGH on the vertical axis (knowing how to motivate)
but LOW on the horizontal axis (HOW to deliver strategy). Too
much manager training doesn’t make any diﬀerence to the
organisation’s ability to deliver strategy.
Managers, performance and action
We regularly work with CEOs who say they are unhappy about
the performance management bureaucracy they see all
around them in their own organisations. They worry that their
organisations are falling behind the performance curve, that
they are leading a mediocre operation.
One major public sector CEO said to us recently: ‘We are just
average. We think we are excellent, but we aren’t. We believe
we have excellent people, and regularly rate them as high-
performing. I think they want to be excellent, but actually, we
don’t know what that looks like if we are honest’.
And a CEO of a global financial services business told us:
‘We want growth. Everyone in this organisation will say they
understand we want growth. Yet hardly anyone seems to know
what to do to deliver growth’.
The two CEOs’ observations are revealing. The organisation
may employ individuals who are good or even excellent at
their individual jobs, but those individuals don’t know how
to improve the overall performance of the organisation. Why
should they know how to do this if they have not been taught
how to improve performance?
KnowingHOWtomotivate
Understanding
strategy
HIGH
HIGH
Understanding
motivation
LOW
Delivering
strategy
Knowing HOW to deliver strategy

18 Turning strategy into action on the front line | 2018
A well-regarded article in Harvard Business Review, Are Leaders
Portable, examined whether successful managers in one
industry were able to repeat their success in another sector.[27]
The authors found that success was not inevitably repeated in
other industries.
One example from the research showed that when the
telecommunications industry in the USA was deregulated
and challenged by new entrants, ‘few former Bell Systems
managers were able to successfully transition to the fast-
moving, entrepreneurial, growth-oriented environment
(of the new entrants), despite being seasoned veterans of
what was considered one of America’s best-managed
companies’.[28]
We’ve found that this academic account of managers in global
companies is similar to our own experiences with clients.
Managers do not know how to deliver the strategy through
improving employee performance.
In our view, this lack of knowledge is a real challenge, and the
challenge will not be solved by coaching or feedback courses,
setting targets or KPIs.
‘Our approach is to give
managers and leaders the
knowledge and skills needed to
deliver the strategy.’
A second HBR case study looked at Gap, a global retailer.
The case study examined what happened when managers
and leaders were given the knowledge and skills to deliver
strategy, as well as the skills required to motivate and engage
their employees. Gap found that their overall approach, which
included more frequent conversations, a change to bonus
structures and removal of performance ratings raised the bar
on performance, supported a shift in culture to being both
nice and honest, and increased the time managers spent
developing performance to deliver strategy (now they knew
how to do it) rather than administering the process.[29]
Managers, motivation and engagement
The ability to motivate is still a critical skill for managers. We
can motivate employees in many ways – fear and money
are both good at short term motivation. However, neither
fear nor money will create an engaged employee; which
neatly highlights the diﬀerence between motivation and
engagement. Engagement is, to use Dan Pink’s phrase –
intrinsic motivation.[30]
Motivation that comes from me, not
from external factors.
An engaged employee is one who is intrinsically motivated
and prepared to put in discretionary eﬀort without an external
prod such as money. Some of the most important research
in the field of performance management links high levels of
employee engagement to business results.[31]
What creates
engagement are the intrinsic motivators outlined by Pink –
mastery, autonomy and purpose.
‘We enable managers to see that:
it is the employee’s job to own
their performance and it’s the
manager’s job to manage it.’
It is the manager’s role to set expectations, provide
feedback and create an environment where high
performance behaviours can flourish.
High performance behaviours
So how should we understand high performance behaviour? The
research in this field is well established. It starts with the ‘big five’
personality traits, also known as the five-factor model.[32]
Three
of these five behaviours are associated with high performance
across most roles and responsibilities:
1. conscientiousness – hard work
2. emotional stability – persistence, resilience, and relative
calm when faced with obstacles
3. openness to learning from experience
Key takeaways
Managers need to know how to
deliver the organisation strategy
Simple exhortations to their
team to work harder will not
deliver the required results

Of the remaining two personality traits, ‘extraversion’ is
associated with high performance in sales and managerial roles,
while ‘agreeableness’ is associated with high performance in
service roles.
It is not really surprising that those who work hard, overcome
obstacles and learn from experience tend to deliver the best
results and do well. It is actually more surprising that such
basic research is so often forgotten, and instead management
development programmes become weighed down with highly
complex theories of motivation.
‘Giving managers the
understanding and skills to
create a working culture where
high performance behaviours
can flourish, regardless of an
individual’s working style or
psychometric profile, is likely to
bring results.’
The research suggests that a manager wanting to improve team
performance should develop a deep understanding of how to:
• deliver the required results (what must be done)
• engage employees through sharing purpose and offering as
much opportunity for mastery and autonomy as possible
• encourage and develop high performance behaviours
If the manager understands how to do these things, they will
be able to create a practical working environment in the office
where high performing employees can grow and flourish.
However, we rarely meet managers who are confident they can
engage employees, deliver results and drive high performance.
Instead, the managers we see are overwhelmed by the very
programmes designed to help them. Many organisations set
out a massive list of ‘leadership behaviours’ requiring people
to be all things to all people. For example, organisations
expect leaders to have an eye for detail at the same time as
seeing the big picture, to build immediate capability and
develop people for the long term. And of course, they must
be expert at ‘managing talent’, ‘having difficult conversations’,
‘celebrating success’ and a whole raft of activities that are
deemed critical to management performance.
We call it the ‘magic manager’ syndrome – perpetuated
by a vast array of training providers promising to have
found the magic bullet solution to making managers super-
human performers.
At 3C we have built our development interventions from these
simple but powerful observations.
We create a deep understanding of what drives performance.
We help people understand how to create an environment
where high performance can flourish. There is no magic potion.
Key takeaways
Though managers may have
technical expertise, they often
lack the knowledge of what
must be done to deliver the
organisation’s strategy. They
may not, for example, know
how to grow the business,
increase productivity, or
transform customer service.
Interventions to improve
performance need both highly
specific content relevant to
what the organisation wants to
achieve, as well as a practical
understanding of how to create
an environment where the
drivers and behaviours of high
performance will flourish.
Too many manager training
programmes promise a ‘magic
manager’ solution. Inspiring
managers to ‘do better’ only
works if they know what to do
and how to do it.

and business strategy
The table below shows the links between Jim Collins’s
research into what makes for successful strategy, and Dan
Pink’s approach into what makes for high performance.
Our work with a range of leaders from FTSE100 global
companies, the public sector and start-ups has shown that
transforming performance management means executives can
deliver their strategy through eﬀective action on the front line.
In his seminal book Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t,
Jim Collins[33]
published the research completed over many years about what underpins
high performing organisations. He found that leaders in high performing organisations
have a passionate shared purpose, a deep understanding of what they can be best
at, and a clearly defined economic engine – they know how to turn their strategy into
profitable action.
A comparison between the drivers of successful organisation strategy and the drivers of high employee performance
Good to Great, Why Some Companies Make the Leap and
Others Don’t by Jim Collins
Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
by Dan Pink
A highly successful strategy comes from: A high performing employee is motivated by:
Shared passion, or purpose among the senior team
that engages the workforce
Purpose – what I am doing matters to me, it’s worth
spending my time and my talent being part of this
Deep understanding of what the organisation can
be best at
Mastery – the opportunity to excel, to be recognised
for my achievements
Absolute clarity about economic engine – the one or two
business drivers that count
Autonomy – the freedom to work out HOW I deliver
what is expected of me within one or two clearly
defined outcomes

The research shows that CEOs want and need HR leaders who focus on
performance management as a means to deliver strategy rather than
HR-led outcomes.
Conclusion
Far thinking HRDs realise that:
The CEO’s imperative
for HRDs is that they
should enable strategy
to become front line
action
Implementing strategy
is difficult and often
neglected
The majority of
employees in
organisations around
the world lack a
real understanding
of what their
organisation’s
strategy means to
them
Organisations will
only achieve the
results they need
by redesigning
performance
management to both
increase employee
ownership and
develop the skills
critical to delivering
the strategy
A modern, educated
workforce generally
delivers the best
results when working
in teams with a shared
purpose and goals
Tactical ‘fixing’ of
different aspects
of performance
management is
unlikely to yield
significant or strategic
impact

A strategic
approach to
designing
performance
management
with purpose
SECTION 2:

One of the most diﬀicult challenges facing HRDs who want to understand performance
management is to think about it as a whole. The research we reported on in the first section
shows that changing some aspects of performance management without reference to the
whole is unlikely to deliver the required results. Furthermore, typical ways of visualising
performance management lead organisations to see it in a very piecemeal fashion.
Application of the
theory in practice
Typical visualisations of performance management look
something like a neat cycle (Fig. 1). In reality, employees
experience the processes in a less than orderly fashion (Fig. 2).
However, visualising performance management as a cycle of
separate events reinforces the belief that it is simply a series
of bureaucratic tasks, completely divorced from any sense of
purpose, motivation, or delivery of results.
Fig. 1
Talent
management
Annual
appraisal
Moderation
Set goals
Mid year
review
L&D
Career
development
Ratings
Fig. 2
Talent
management
Annual
appraisal
Moderation
Set goals
Mid year
review
L&D
Career
development
Ratings
Adhoc1 21s
Succession plan?
Reward?
PRP?

We developed the canvas after exploring the ideas set out by
Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur in their book Business
Model Generation.[34]
Their book, and its companion The
Operating Model Canvas,[35]
look at organisations as a series of
processes that create value.
‘The 3C Performance
Management Canvas reveals
the interaction between the
employee and the organisation
as the process of value creation
for both sides.’
The 3C Performance Management Canvas reveals the
interaction between the employee and the organisation as the
process of value creation for both sides. Its power comes from
capturing motivations and performance drivers rather than
describing internal processes.
• I OWN my performance and my manager MANAGES it
• The more I can seek and receive feedback that increases
my levels of MASTERY, AUTONOMY and PURPOSE the higher
my performance is likely to be
• The more the culture encourages conscientiousness,
emotional stability and learning from experience the higher
my performance is likely to be
• The more people work in teams with a shared purpose
and goals, the higher the overall performance of the
organisation is likely to be
The Canvas helps us design the right solutions. But of course,
we realise that effective implementation is critical.
We realised that there were two critical factors missing from the diagrams – employee
motivations and shared purpose of the organisation. The result of our fundamentally
different approach is:
The 3C Performance Management Canvas
What’sthe
purpose?
Delivering
strategy on
the front line
What I
seek
Mastery
Autonomy
Purpose
What?
Productivity
Excellence
Efficiency
Growth
Innovation
How?
Values &
Behaviours
Feedback,
coaching and
performance conversations
Ownership
Results
Learning
& training
Career
development
Wellbeing
Reward &
recognition
ORGANISATION EMPLOYEEENGAGEMENT

In particular, the research highlighted the importance of
shared purpose and enabling employees to take ownership of
their performance. You will see these two important themes
in every aspect of our implementation, from how we involve
employees in designing a new approach, to the emphasis
on employees understanding how to make the most of
performance conversations, feedback and coaching.
Implementation
Our unique 3-step approach is based on the 15 years of experience, research and insight
summarised in the first section of this white paper.
1.
Jumpstart
Workshops to engage your
senior leaders in an intelligent
re-evaluation of the purpose
of performance management.
Work alongside 3C specialists
to design an approach that will
deliver your strategy on the
front line. Creative, stimulating
and full of light bulb moments!
2.
Training and
Engagement
Witty, interactive training and
engagement for the workforce
and managers - engaging even
the most sceptical with not
just what to do, but why do it.
Builds skills, shared purpose
and mutual accountability.
3.
Feedback and
Coaching culture
The Frequent Feedback
Platform embeds a culture of
feedback and coaching for all.
Tailored coaching content and
activities for team meetings
keeps a strong focus on
purpose and performance.
While each project is diﬀerent and tailored to the needs to the
client, most organisations will need some element of all three
steps to ensure a real transformation.
Many of our clients have a significant proportion of their
managers promoted from technical, professional or academic
roles. Within our programmes we have developed material
specifically to help technical experts become great people
managers. Throughout our programmes we never lose sight
of the need to turn strategy into action on the front line.
‘...we never lose sight of the need
to turn strategy into action on the
front line.’
Read on for some case studies sharing practical examples of
how we implement solutions.

CASE STUDY 1:
Performance management to
support vision and strategy
The client originally asked 3C to
deliver training in SMART goals. After a
thorough situation review, 3C suggested
a Performance Scorecard would be
much more effective at transforming the
clear strategy into daily practice for the
vast majority of the workforce.
Working with the executive team, 3C
developed seven themes embodying
what employees needed to do to be
successful, reflecting the values and
supporting behaviours that will make a
difference.
The 3C Performance Scorecard ditches
objectives altogether, being based
instead on the questions the CEO would
want to discuss with everyone in a
performance conversation, regardless of
their role. A Scorecard approach:
• captures what really matters in a set
of 4-12 questions
• does not reduce anyone to a SINGLE
NUMBER or WORD
• is open, honest, consistent and fair
• deepens the understanding of how to
deliver the purpose of the organisation.
With no time wasted wrestling with
objectives, the Scorecard allows more
time to focus on the performance
conversation. The Scorecard was piloted
and the outcomes used to bring the
themes to life across a diverse workforce.
Workshops and training sessions followed
for all employees and managers.
Because the Performance Scorecard is
based on questions which reflect what
really matters, it helps to drive and change
people’s behaviour. The Scorecard
promotes and supports the idea of
progress, development and improvement.
A major housing organisation had an ambitious new purpose and strategy in place. The
recently appointed HRD realised that the existing approach to appraisals was patchy,
inconsistent and inadequate. They needed performance management to promote one
coherent team and support the overriding vision.
‘...3C suggested
a Performance
Scorecard would be
much more effective
at transforming the
clear strategy into
daily practice...’
‘Great work from 3C – turning what was a complex and
inconsistent process into an incredibly effective and fair
approach to performance and performance conversations
across our organisation.’
Head of Organisation Development

CASE STUDY 2:
Performance management builds
collaboration and customer focus
for super-smart analysts
As performance management specialists,
3C were called in to support a re-think.
Working with the executive team, 3C
showed how a new approach could
embed the strategy within performance
management and help them deliver
results. WHAT you talk about in
performance really matters. There were
many light bulb moments!
The resulting approach is employee-
owned and focuses on having good
quality, regular performance conversations
– ‘check-ins’ – with the manager.
Crucially, the check-ins are structured
around core Success Criteria – seven
themes everyone discusses at least three
times a year, led by the employees and
focused on both performance
and development.
Training sessions for all employees and
managers ensured everyone across the
10 global oﬀices understood what is
expected and how to make the check-in
conversations a success.
Feedback from employees shows:
• people feel aligned with the things
that REALLY matter to the business
• everyone is clear about what is being
measured and how
• the Success Criteria are seen as
important and relevant, so worth
spending time on
• the simplified approach is thought
to be fair, transparent and more
consistent across the business.
The result – employees have a fresh
perspective on what high performance
looks like in their organisation, and in
a language that they feel comfortable
using. People now want their performance
conversation and take their share of
responsibility for making them a success.
When the CEO and HRD of a sophisticated analytical market intelligence company set
out to create growth through a strategic change, they knew they would need to think
diﬀerently about managing performance. The HRD faced facts:
• most senior people were not engaged
• the process was not aligned with business performance
• the process was not delivering for the business
‘Over 99% of participants would recommend the
workshops to colleagues.’
Analysis of programme evaluations
‘...3C showed how a
new approach could
embed the strategy
within performance
management and
help them deliver
results.’

Appendices
The following appendices summarise the key challenges often
preventing organisations turning strategy into action on the
front line.
The issues can seem so overwhelming that managers lose
sight of what is really important. HRDs need to deal with the
major challenges, rather than ignore them. HRDs who are
side-tracked by a series of apparent challenges become the
‘procedure police force’ rather than value creators.
Appendix 1: What about poor performance?
Managers notoriously find dealing with poor performance very
tricky and tend to avoid it. It helps to separate out identifying
and drawing attention to poor performance (the manager’s
role) and doing something about it (the employee’s role). It
is for the manager to give clear feedback about what needs
to change. It is for the employee to choose to act on that
feedback or not. In our experience, once managers realise
it is not their job to ‘make a person change’, (because, as
discussed, this is an impossible task) they find it easier to
give performance feedback. If an employee chooses not to
act, then, with all usual safeguards, a more formal process to
redress performance or manage an exit needs to commence.
More worryingly, we see that the vast majority of poor
performance is really because no-one quite knows what to
do to improve. The problems are not understood, the options
to improve or change not clear, and the manager can often
only say ‘not good enough’. In this context, the 3C approach
to manager training will make a significant difference in that
it provides the manager with a much greater idea of WHAT to
do. In contrast, most ‘difficult conversations’ training focuses
on conversation structure, paying less attention to what will
actually make a difference to performance.
Appendix 2: The role of reward
No white paper looking at performance management would
be complete without some reference to reward. And yet –
all the evidence shows that in the vast majority of cases,
variable reward (typically bonus) makes little difference to
performance. That is not to say there is no role for variable
aspects of pay. Industry has long used ‘overtime’ rates to
encourage workers to put in hours additional to their contract.
The concept of piece-work is well established, as is sales
commission. It is the annual ‘bonus’ round that causes so
much trouble.
There is a widespread belief that offering an annual bonus
based on performance will actually impact performance
positively despite extensive evidence to the contrary. Dan Pink
reports evidence demonstrating the opposite effect – that a
high potential bonus actually impedes performance of any
role that requires cognitive complexity.[36]
Other research shows job satisfaction is only marginally
correlated with pay satisfaction which is not correlated with
performance at all. In other words, just because I am satisfied
with my pay does not mean I am satisfied with my job, nor
does it mean I am performing well.[37]
Research by Herzberg completed decades ago,[38]
showed
that once we have reached our comfort level of financial
security, then motivation and performance are only marginally
impacted by money. Why then do we still use annual
differentiated bonus in so many organisations? The answer is
that we feel we must because ‘everyone else does’.
Which reveals that money, or rather reward, is primarily a
function of recruitment and retention.
Reward is on our 3C Performance Management Canvas as just
one factor in the many that make up an employee’s experience
of work.
Appendix 3: The role of technology
By itself, most technology will not change anything.
Performance management platforms usually supply empty
templates that are completed by employees to track progress
(who has done what), primarily for administration purposes.
The software does not measure the quality of what employees
write in the system. This means that the opportunity to actually
improve performance is not resident in the technology but in
the people using it.
Our approach to technology looks at how far it can be used to
improve performance, rather than record it.
Any system that can deliver practical feedback and coaching
is going to be helpful. A tool that enables managers to
manage their coaching and feedback for their team, and
gives employees more autonomy, and the potential to
develop mastery is worth having. This means no more empty
templates, but practical content about how to deliver the
strategy. To respond to this need we have developed the 3C
Frequent Feedback platform. The aim is to do one job properly
– to improve performance.
We don’t pretend our platform will be right for every
organisation in every situation (one size does not fit all). We do
know that empty templates are for administration purposes. It
is content – what should be done – that drives performance.
The strategic HRD will of course need to ensure that basic
administration of performance is in place appropriately.
But the strategic part of the role is to ensure that there is
appropriate technology in place to improve performance and
deliver on the principles.

References
1. West, M.A., Markiewicz, L. (2016) Effective team working
in health care. The Oxford Handbook of Health Care
Management. Oxford University Press.
2. Schwartz, J., Bersin J., & Pelser, B. (2014) Deloitte Global
Human Capital Trends: Engaging the 21st-century
Workforce. Deloitte University Press.
3. Boselie, P; Paauwe, J; Jansen P; (2000) Human resource
management and performance. Erasmus Research Institute
of Management.
4. Baron, A., Armstrong M., Managing Performance:
Performance Management in Action (Developing Practice)
(2004) CIPD Publications
5. Gifford, Jonny (2016) Could do better? Assessing what
works in performance management Research report. CIPD
6. Gifford, Jonny (2016) ibid.
7. https://www.cebglobal.com/blogs/corporate-hr-removing-
performance-ratings-is-unlikely-to-improve-performance/
8. Berggren. E & Fitz-enz, J. (2006). How Smart HCM Drives
Financial Performance. Success Factors and Workforce
Intelligence Institute.
9. Gifford, Jonny (2016) ibid
10.https://www.forbes.com/sites/
sylviavorhausersmith/2012/12/16/the-new-face-of-
performance-management-trading-annual-reviews-for-
agile-management/#391921237aeb
11.CIPD (2017) Debate. Performance Management Conference
12.Capelli, P., & Tavis, A. (2016) The performance management
revolution. Harvard Business Review
13.CIPD (2016) Paper. Performance Management Conference
14.CIPD (2017) Paper. Performance Management Conference
15.The Hackett Group 2014 HR World-Class Performance
Advantage research
16.Holley, Nick (2016) What CEOs want from HR, Henley
Business School, University of Reading
17.Fehd, Larry., What CEOs Really Want from HR Leaders.
http://hp-strategies.com/ezine/want.php
18.Zenger, J., & Folman, J. What Separates Great HR Leaders
from the Rest. HBR
19.Franken. A., Edwards, C., & Lambert, R. (2009)
Understanding the Critical Management Elements that
Lead To Success. California Management Review
20.Kaplan, R. & Norton, D. (2005): Creating the Office of
Strategy management. Harvard Business Review.
21.Shimizu, K. (2017). Senders’ Bias: How Can Top Managers’
Communication Improve or Not Improve Strategy
Implementation. International Journal of Business
Communication, 54(1), 52-69.
22.Pink, D. H. (2009) Drive: The Surprising Truth About What
Motivates Us. Riverhead Hardcover.
23.Pardee, R.L., (1990) Motivation Theories of Maslow,
Herzberg, McGregor & McClelland. A Literature Review
of Selected Theories Dealing with Job Satisfaction and
Motivation. Institute of Education Resources.
24.Bodell, L., (2012) Kill the Company: End the Status Quo,
Start an Innovation Revolution. Bibliomotion Inc.
25.Growth re-imagined: Prospects in emerging markets. PwC
14th Annual Global CEO Survey. http://www.pwc.com/
ceosurvey
26.Rayton, B., (2012) ‘Nailing the Evidence’ report from
Employee Engagement Task Force. Engage for Success.
27.Groysberg, B., McLean A. N., Nohria, N., (2006) Are Leaders
Portable? Harvard Business Review
28.Groysberg, B. ibid
29.Margolis, J.D., McKinnon, P.D., Norris, M., (2015) Gap Inc.:
Refashioning Performance Management. Harvard Business
Review.
30.Pink, D. H. ibid
31.Edmans, A., (2016) 28 Years of Stock Market Data Shows a
Link Between Employee Satisfaction and Long-Term Value.
Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2016/03/28-years-
of-stock-market-data-shows-a-link-between-employee-
satisfaction-and-long-term-value
32.Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of
the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology. 41:
417–440.
33.Collins, J., (2001) Good to Great. Random House
34.Osterwalder, A., Y Pigneur (2010) Business Model
Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers,
and Challengers. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
35.Campbell, A., Gutierrez., Lancelott, M., (2017) Operating
Model Canvas 2017. Van Haren Publishing.
36.Pink, D. H. (2009) ibid
37.Judge, Timothy A. et al (2010) The relationship between
pay and job satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the literature.
Journal of Vocational Behaviour. 77: 157-167
38.Herzberg, Frederik (1968 & 2000) One more time: How do
you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review.

‘I’m sure you’ve been overwhelmed with positive feedback but just
in case you haven’t – this approach is great. The questions are
appropriate, the rating is very clear, the time taken is small and the
opportunity to discuss real business impact and performance is
great. Well done to the team who put this together.’
Damien Marantelli, General Manager, Mining Operations. First Quantum Minerals Ltd
‘Thank you for the expert work you and your colleagues at
3C have done to help set our objectives and implement our
strategy. I did not fully appreciate the benefits until I saw how
it has worked out this year. There has been visible change in
focus. Much of the success was due to the clear and engaging
way you presented the issues to senior staff.’
Professor Steven Cowley, CEO, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
‘Well done! Great sessions which have made a real difference.
The experiential nature of seeing and hearing the
performance conversation taking place with the actors was a
particular highlight for me…’
Guy Dickson, Head of Organisational Development, Plymouth City Council
‘We couldn’t have designed our new approach to Performance
Management without 3C. They know their stuff, and work from
a strong evidence base. Engaging a large, global organisation
is never easy – 3C have shown they understand our challenges
and have most importantly helped us re-purpose our
performance management to deliver our strategy as well as
massively simplify the process for our workforce.’
Bernadette Bruton, Global Talent and OD Director, Aviva plc
What our clients say

Our clients
Royal Free London
NHS Foundation Trust
Southampton
University Hospitals NHS Trust
Portsmouth Hospitals
NHS Trust

Contact 3C today to discuss how we can help you
transform Performance Management:
3C Associates Ltd
Oﬀice 8, Henley Enterprise Park
Greys Road, Henley on Thames
RG9 1UF
UK
T: +44 (0) 1491 411 544
E: info@3cperform.co.uk
www.3cperform.co.uk
©3C Associates Ltd 2018
This white paper is for general informational purposes only. Any use of this
information is at your own risk. 3C Associates Ltd may have patent or pending patent
applications, trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property rights covering
the subject matter of this publication.

Performance Management White Paper by Hedda Bird (3C)

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Performance Management White Paper by Hedda Bird (3C) (20)

More from Hedda Bird (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Performance Management White Paper by Hedda Bird (3C)