Inability to instantly identify employee issues.
John has recently joined as a manager and has a distinct way of dealing with those junior to him.
He sets tasks via email,
avoids personal interaction
with juniors and when deadlines are
not met owing to his tasks not being
properly understood or the deadlines having been set with unrealistic expectations,
John places blame easily on juniors. While those under John have tried to approach the issue with him, he insists that there is
no issue and that if there is, they should bring it up at the next review which is a few months away. Being junior to John,
many are afraid to insist on action being taken immediately (with the fear that they will be held in poor regard by him and
seniors he reports to) and so, simply let the issue slide. As the official 360-degre review period approaches a few months later,
John makes a conscious effort to assume a high degree of professionalism for the period surrounding the review, however,
a few weeks later, relapses into his usual state. This process continues and a few months later, two major clients of the
company launch official complaints on the poor deliverables coming out of John and his lack of proper communication.
Following an official and lengthy review, John's employment with the firm is ended.
The current 360-degree rating system in place did
not allow John's deficiencies to be brought to the fore quick enough.
While attempts by his juniors were made to highlight apparent issues in
his management and communication style, it is only when clients complained,
that formal action was taken. The juniors suffered through months of poor management
and leadership and saw an erosion in the quality of their learning and development within the firm,
as a result of John's management style. John, while talented, lost his job as he had done irreparable damage to the firm's brand.
The above situation need not have gotten out of control if the company's employees would have had access to a discreet,
yet direct and real-time rating system. After interacting with John, they would have been able to log on and score him
on a range of attributes (such as communication, task management, attitude etc.). As John's management issues were experienced
by many within the firm, the decision makers with access to the Bugscore 360 would have immediately been alerted to the problem
by way of increasingly negative scores on John, a higher frequency of scores and scores originating from multiple parties -
all pointing to the same issue. These alerts would have allowed senior management resources to be mobilised towards
John immediately. He would have been warned much earlier and would have had the time to take the steps necessary to make
a professional course correction. In turn, his juniors would have benefited and ultimately, the likelihood of clients
complaining would have drastically been reduced. Employee quality improved, clients happy, revenues salvaged.
Inability to instantly identify problems developing on a team.
Anne is rising star on a competitive and well regarded team. She holds the respect of her
colleagues and managers and is on track to become the co-head of the team during the next promotions period.Tim,
a new employee, joins the team and is of a similar seniority level as Anne. While Tim has the same technical
knowledge as Anne, he still has to build a client franchise and win internal buy-in from those around him. He,
however, sees it differently and feels these actions will take too long and as a result, he will miss out on quicker
career growth opportunities within the firm. Therefore, he begins to make a conscious effort to find holes in Anne's
work with the view to win respect of the managers. Anne, being relatively junior herself, chooses to deal with Tim
directly and often their discussions turn into arguments. The managers on Anne's team begin to take note of how emotionally
unsettled Anne becomes at times, thereby showcasing that she might not be ready for a promotion just yet. Although she speaks
to the managers on her team about the growing problem with Tim, they ask her to solve it herself, as doing so will mean she is
ready to tackle petty inter-team issues and therefore, ready for a managerial role. They also remind her that taking the
issue to senior management will only hurt the team's reputation within the company and therefore, there is no need to involve
the heads of department. While Tim is given a gentle warning, it hardly causes any change in his behaviour. Tim capitalises on
his momentum and forgets to deliver key messages from clients that were intended for Anne's attention. Unbeknownst to Anne,
her client ratings start to drop and as a result, her internal ranking within the firm falls. The promotion period arrives and
Anne finds that she has been passed up for promotion. Anne feels that the momentum she had established over the years was all
in vain and begins a search for employment opportunities elsewhere. Within a few weeks, she hands in her resignation leaving the
team with a significant loss in client franchise. On the personal front, Anne views her departure as a hit to her career progression
and personal confidence. Ironically, word of her departure and reasons surrounding it, also spread across the company
resulting in the team becoming the subject of workplace controversy (something the managers did not want in the first place).
The current 360-degree rating system in place did not allow Tim and Anne's deterioration in relationship to be
brought to the attention of senior management. While the team's immediate management was notified of the issues,
they themselves failed to take the cry for help seriously and instead placed their team's internal reputation over
the demands of one of their star assets. Over time, this, along with Tim's malicious attempts to thwart Anne's
promotion, resulted in a drop in the quality of output and development on the team. Not only did Anne miss out on
a promotion she had worked hard for and earned, but she left the company and will need to prove her mettle once
again at a new firm. Anne's departure, in turn, hurt the team's internal reputation and overall, the firm.
The above situation could have been avoided had Anne's concerns reached the heads of department and been taken
seriously by her immediate managers. With access to a real-time rating system such as Bugscore 360, decision makers
(including the human resources department) would have been alerted to drops in both Anne and Tim's scores thus allowing
them to mobilise management resources early on. Anne, when having received no help from her immediate managers,
could have lowered their scores thus immediately indicating to senior management and human resources, that indeed a
bigger problem was brewing. Team problems nipped at the bud, employee quality improved, asset loss hindered.
Inability to effectively put a stop to authority struggles and workplace bullying.
Rob is big hitter in his department. With over fifteen years under his belt in this company, he is amongst the highest
revenue generators for the firm and well liked by clients. He also has a cozy relationship with the head of the department.
Rob is known to have a big ego, often bullying juniors and even peers of a similar level of seniority. Employees who
interact with him often feel nervous and constricted. Rob's bravado has now begun to spread to clients as well as prospective
employees who are interviewing for a position within the firm. While clients have not officially complained,
client entertainment visits with the head of the department have revealed that Rob's attitude is becoming difficult to bear,
although his quality of work remains good. A few complaints about Rob's authoritative, bullying behaviour have been lodged
with the head of the department, however, they have fallen on deaf ears as the complaints are sporadic and not serious
enough to warrant action. A few months pass and during an interview with a potential hire, Kelly, Rob engages in delivering
defamatory, sexist and ageist remarks and eventually cutting the interview short. A few weeks later, the press runs a story on the
theme 'bullying at the workplace and big egos.' As part of their story, they get in touch with Kelly and other recent
interviewees to have them recount their interview experiences with prominent companies. Days later, a major news story breaks
which includes the names of the firms that harbour unprofessional employees and engage in improper interview practices.
While Rob is not explicitly mentioned in the article, clients immediately deduce that all is not right at this company.
The head of Rob's department receives calls from multiple clients that owing to potential brand damage,
they cannot renew their business relationship with the firm.
The current 360-degree rating system in place did not allow Rob's big ego, authoritative style and overall
unprofessionalism to be brought to the fore swiftly enough. Owing to his strong client relationships, ability
to generate revenue and strong personal relationship with the head of the department, Rob's attitude went
unchecked until it was too late. Although those around him did attempt to bring his behaviour to the attention
of senior management, Rob's financial importance in the firm meant that the heads of department protected
him to some degree. Those around him suffered and saw their personal development stunted owing to his lack of professionalism.
New potential assets for the firm were not given a realistic chance during interviews owing to his behaviour.
All of this culminated in the word spreading and eventual client loss at the firm.
The above situation could have been avoided had complaints given on Rob been taken seriously by senior management.
With access to a real-time rating system such as Bugscore 360, decision makers (including the human resources department)
would have been alerted to sharp drops in Rob's score from numerous employees. These drops in score would have occurred
through out the year and in after various interactions he was having with employees within the firm; not just during the
official review period. Rob's attitude could have been kept in check and thus improved the working environment for his peers
internally and improved the firm's brand with respect to how they conduct interviews and represent themselves to clients.
Attitudes kept in check, employee quality improved, brand loss hindered.
Inability to tangibly quantify the strengths and weaknesses of employees, over time.
Laura recently joined a well performing team. The nature of her job is fast paced with varied tasks, high workload,
competition, pay and promotion opportunities. Although the company has a formal review process in place,
it only takes place on a few occasions each year and is a key determining factor in pay increases, bonuses and promotions.
It is nearing the end of the fiscal year and the last formal firm-wide review that was conducted six weeks ago, indicates Laura
is in good stead for a pay increase, handsome bonus and potential promotion. The year comes to a close and Laura is informed
by her manager that she will be receiving a pay increase and modest bonus, however no promotion at this stage as her momentum
had somewhat tailed off towards the final quarter of the year. Laura feels deflated and at a loss for words as she felt
she worked hard and at a consistent intensity throughout the year. With no hard evidence showing her week-by-week performance,
Laura finds it difficult to back up her conviction that she deserved a promotion. On another team, however, another employee
of Laura's level had a relatively quiet year, however, towards the year-end, he won the adulation of his colleagues by bringing
in a new client for the firm. He was promoted as a result. Laura is puzzled as her clients repeatedly informed her that
they admire her work ethic and find her an invaluable asset.
The current 360-degree rating system in place did not allow Laura's achievements to be tracked in real-time.
Although her efforts surrounding the review period did not sufficiently stand out when compared to peers who
went on to be promoted, her overall contribution to the firm throughout the year was significantly higher.
The ability to quantify the efficiency of employee actions, in real-time, is necessary, when aligning employee
performance with compensation and promotion opportunities. With access to a real-time rating system such as Bugscore 360,
both employees and managers can correlate actions they have taken (such as 'arranged client meeting, launched campaign,
planned roadshow' etc.) to their own score history. This will allow for a more informed discussion during formal,
sit-down meetings where career progression is debated and can ensure that employee efforts do not go unnoticed.
Such a system also serves as a powerful memory bank which stores all employee/organisational achievements and events and how
they may have contributed to score increases or decreases of employees, departments and entire companies.