The document summarizes the results of a survey conducted by the CIPD Guernsey Branch on performance management practices in Guernsey. Some key findings include: - Respondents had varying views of their performance management systems, with the top answers being "good" and "inconsistent". Systems were viewed more positively when reviews occurred more frequently and involved wider input. - While annual appraisals are still universally used, many employers are looking to change elements like the format, use of continuous feedback, or new IT systems rather than abandoning the process. - Most respondents had used performance improvement plans in the past three years, and most saw improved performance or resignations as outcomes rather than grievances.

1. CIPD Guernsey
Performance
Management Survey
April 2016

2. The CIPD is the professional body for HR and people development. The
not-for-profit organisation champions better work and working lives and
has been setting the benchmark for excellence in people and
organisation development for more than 100 years. It has more than
135,000 members across the world, provides thought leadership through
independent research on the world of work, and offers professional
training and accreditation for those working in HR and learning and
development.

3. Foreword
Staff performance is critical to an
organisation’s success and the way we work
is constantly evolving. Traditional
performance management systems have not
kept apace or realised their potential. This
imbalance is borne out by the recent tide of
organisations wanting to change and
improve how they approach performance at
work. Guernsey is certainly not immune
from these changes, and with such a mix of
employers on the island ranging from the
large multinationals with huge global
resources devoted to performance
management, right down to small local
businesses with minimal means just trying to
get the best out of their people, it is
revealing to see the issues and variety of
approach found on island.
The CIPD Guernsey Branch sought to
discover and understand the impact of these
issues in Guernsey, and we have shared
some of the findings in our 2016 Conference
on Performance Management.
As an HR Professional, I appreciate the
collective knowledge gained from such a
local survey and as a Branch we wanted to
find out if there was any truth behind the
rumours that appraisal systems are useless,
outdated and loathed, and discover what
systems are in place and if they were felt to
work or not on island. We also wanted to
find out if there are employers out there who
are genuinely willing to tackle poor
performers or just fall back on a compromise
agreement every time there is a problem.
In order to answer these important questions
Richard Sheldon our Policy Advisor
undertook a survey amongst our members
and has collated this report for your reading
and to highlight key areas to consider.
Having read the results, whilst it is clear that
there remains much work to be done in a
number of areas, I was pleased to see that
there is a willingness to change and tackle
issues too.
As HR Professionals, immersed in this
performance management heartland, what
we do with the information we learn is vital.
People are our most important assets and
fulfilling employees’ potential at work with a
limited resource pool, is key. To fulfil
potential, performance is far more than just
filling in appraisal forms and getting rid of the
deadwood, it ultimately develops the culture
and values of a business and will positively
impact the bottom line. We therefore must
be at the forefront of performance
development to be at the forefront of
business today. If we seize new opportunity
and really work with our organisation to get
the right approach for our individual
business then I genuinely believe we can
change Guernsey’s performance for the
better.
I hope you find the results equally
illuminating.
Caroline Shakerley
Chair – Guernsey CIPD

4. Executive summary
Given the obvious importance to every
business of maximising the performance of
staff, it remains one of the great ironies of
the HR world that whenever you speak to
people, that the whole subject of
performance management, almost
immediately invokes a rolling of the eyes.
From the dreaded annual appraisal, to the
refusal of many managers to tackle
performance issues, it seems most
businesses want to do something to
improve, yet what is obvious is that there is
no universal solution.
As always the mix of responses from
Guernsey employers comes from a very
diverse bunch, ranging from global banks,
the public sector through to small local
businesses. Each one is trying to get the
best out of its people and each having
different strengths and weaknesses. Whilst
logic may say that larger employers with
their greater resources ought to be better at
performance management, the only obvious
difference revealed in the survey was that
more training was provided to managers of
businesses with 100 or more staff (69%
against 40%), but the overall results
remained similar regardless of the size of
the business.
This survey is a snapshot of what is
happening right now in Guernsey and the
results will no doubt provide some useful
insight to those of you who are thinking what
should we do with our approach to
performance management?
What is the main point of performance
management?
This may seem like a blindingly obvious
question, but the results were revealing, in
that rather than picking one of the options
given, the most popular response with nearly
a third of the answers saying it was “all of
the above”.
Without question all of the answers are
important to a degree, but by saying
everything is equally important then this
tends to create a culture where in practice
nothing is actually prioritised. In particular,
such an approach will usually result in
systems that lack focus, with mixed
messages being sent out and underlying
problems not tackled. This may be an
explanation for some of the issues we tend
to face e.g. objectives are often vague or are
usually forgotten, as highlighted in the
response to Question 5. What as a HR
community must never be forgotten is that
we are there not just to improve the people
for their own benefit, but ultimately the
performance of our business. If our
approach does not do this, then you have to
question what is the point of all the effort
that is being put in?
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Toassesspast
performance
Toidentifyfuture
developmentareas
Todiscusscareer
plans/future
aspirations
Settingfuture
performance
objectives
Alloftheabove

5. What do we think of our performance
management system?
This was always going to be a revealing
answer, and at first glance it is fair to say we
all think differently. The top answers were:
When the top two answers were ‘Good’ and
‘Inconsistent’ it is clear something else is at
play, with different people having very
different experiences of performance
management. So why is this the case?
The answer is perhaps best revealed when
you dig a little further underneath the results.
There were two stark differences in the
results between those who regarded their
system as being “Good” versus
“Inconsistent”. The first point to note was in
response to Question 6, nearly 85% who
those who rated their system as “Good” had
appraisals twice a year, whereas those who
thought their system was Inconsistent it was
only 36%, with the remainder only having
annual appraisals. The other point to note
was that at Question 8 there was wider input
into the review process for those who rated
their system as Good, against those who
believe their system was Inconsistent. For
example in relation to those who believe
their system was Inconsistent, 57% only had
reviewer and reviewee input into appraisals.
Two obvious conclusions can be drawn from
this analysis – performance management is
perceived to work better when reviews
happen more frequently and there is wider
input into the discussion than just the
employee and their line manager.
Are we abandoning annual appraisals?
The answer to this for Guernsey was a
universal “no”. Everyone still has a formal
annual or bi-annual appraisal process, and
in respect of those considering change, this
was not even on the agenda. Given the
amount that has been written in the HR
press and the number of global businesses
experimenting with abandoning formal
annual appraisals in favour of a continuous
feedback model, it is clear this approach has
not taken hold yet in Guernsey.
For those looking to change, the focus is on
issues such as the format of appraisals
(41%), the use of IT systems (24%) or just
making minor amendments (18%). If we
accept the aim of performance management
must be to ultimately improve the underlying
performance of the business, and that in
some businesses there is a real need to
improve how we performance manage, there
is a risk we are either not aware of the
issues or are skirting around the problem,
rather than tackling it head on.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Ineffective
Valuable
Good
Inconsistent
Easyforthebusiness
touse
Alignedwiththe
purposeofthe
system
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Wearechangingthe
formatand/orfocusof
ourappraisals
Weareincreasingthe
useofcontinuous
feedback
Weareimplementinga
newperformance
managementITsystem
Wewillbemakingminor
amendmentstoour
existingsystem
Wedon'tknow,wejust
knowthatwewantto
change

6. Are we all avoiding dealing with
performance issues?
Whilst there is without question anecdotal
evidence out there that we are in danger of
not seeing the issues or tackling them, the
results of the survey were actually
encouraging with 72% of respondents
having put someone on a Performance
Improvement Plan (PIP) over the last three
years. Of those respondents that have used
a PIP, 75% report that they have had an
employee improve after being put on one,
71% have had an employee resign and 50%
have followed this through to a dismissal.
One of the reasons often given for avoiding
performance management is that it is
believed the organisation will end up facing
grievances or Tribunal claims if they do
attempt to tackle issues. Yet looking at the
results of the survey this is not borne out
with only 13% having received a grievance
over formal or informal attempts to
performance manage, and only 5% having
received a Tribunal claim.
This at least demonstrates that despite the
management time that has to be invested in
taking someone through a PIP, it is possible
to get a positive outcome, without ending up
in a costly dispute.
Compromise Agreement Culture
When we initially undertook this survey, one
of the questions as a Committee we were
interested to have answered was the use of
compromise agreements to “buy-off”
problem employees, and whether Guernsey
really has a compromise agreement culture.
Whilst 39% of respondents accepted they
had used a compromise agreement in the
last 3 years to pay off a poor performer, that
figure is probably lower than most people
would expect based on the anecdotal
evidence we hear.
When you look at who is using compromise
agreements, it is interesting to see that it is
businesses across all sectors, of all sizes,
with all different views and systems on
performance management. If nothing else, it
is at least encouraging to see that
compromise agreements are being used in a
more discerning way, as simply another tool
for businesses to try and tackle poor
performance, rather than as a substitute for
performance management as a whole.
Richard Sheldon
Policy Advisor – Guernsey CIPD

28. For further information and guidance from CIPD Head Office, please refer to the following:-
Surveys: http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/survey-reports/
Policy: http://www.cipd.co.uk/publicpolicy/policy-reports/default.aspx
To keep up to date with CIPD locally, follow us on:-
LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/CIPD-Guernsey-Branch-3314548/about
Website: http://www.cipd.co.uk/local/guernsey/default.aspx
Email: Guernsey@cipdbranch.co.uk
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
151 The Broadway London SW19 1JQ United Kingdom
T +44 (0)20 8612 6200 F +44 (0)20 8612 6201
E cipd@cipd.co.uk W cipd.co.uk
Incorporated by Royal Charter
Registered as a charity in England and Wales (1079797) and Scotland (SC045154)
Issued: February 2015 Reference: 6867 © CIPD 2016