General Electric (GE) Put an End to​ Forced Ranking per for Mance Management Under the reign of its for­mer CEO, Jack Welsh, General Electric was the most well-known pro­po­nent of annu­al per­for­mance rat­ings and forced dis­tri­b­u­tion curves.

This exercise is a team project that will include in-class presentation

Course Name: MBA 525- Organizational Behavior & Theories 

Document Type: Case Study-2 Performance Management & Motivation Factor in OB

read the three different case study below and answer 6 questions in the bottom in 2-3 page and 10 powerpoint slides 

General Electric (GE) Put an End to​ Forced Ranking per for Mance Management

Under the reign of its for­mer CEO, Jack Welsh, General Electric was the most well-known pro­po­nent of annu­al per­for­mance rat­ings and forced dis­tri­b­u­tion curves. 

For decades, GE operated a “rank and yankLinks to an external site.” system, where­by employees were appraised and rated once a year. Afterward, the bot­tom 10% were fired. Not exactly a recipe for employee engagement! Such an environment is a breeding ground for unhealthy competition, reduced teamwork, and employee burnout.

In 2015, under CEO Jeff Immelt, GE announced it was replacing this approach with feedbackLinks to an external site. and reg­u­lar con­ver­sa­tions called​”touch­pointsLinks to an external site.” to review progress against agreed near-term goals. This new approach was supported by an online and mobile app, similar to our own Clear Review performance managementLinks to an external site., which enables employees to capture progress against their goals, give their peers feedback, and also request feedback.

Managers will still have an annu­al sum­ma­ry with employees, looking back at the year and setting goals. But this conversation is more about standing back and discussing achievements and learnings, and much less fraught than annual reviews.

Cargill Intro­duced Coach­ing Con­ver­sa­tions in Place of Annu­al Appraisals

Like Adobe, Cargill, the US food pro­duc­er and dis­trib­u­tor, start­ed to trans­form its tra­di­tion­al per­for­mance man­age­ment process­es back in 2012, when it intro­duced ​“Every­day Per­for­mance Man­age­mentLinks to an external site.”.

Cargill removed per­for­mance rat­ings and annu­al review forms and instead focused on man­agers hav­ing fre­quent, on-the-job con­ver­sa­tions and giv­ing reg­u­lar, con­struc­tive feed­back. They have made this work by:

• Reg­u­lar­ly reward­ing and recognizing man­agers who demon­strate good day-to-day per­for­mance man­age­ment practices.
• Shar­ing the expe­ri­ences and tips of their suc­cess­ful managers.
• Hold­ing teams are account­able for practicing day-to-day per­for­mance management.
• Build­ing the skills need­ed to suc­ceed at Every­day Per­for­mance Man­age­ment, includ­ing effec­tive two-way com­mu­ni­ca­tion, giv­ing feed­back, and coaching.

The outcome has been impressive, with employeesLinks to an external site. now saying they feel valued as a result of their ongoing performance discussions with their manager.

Deloitte Saved 2 Mil­lion Work­ing Hours per Year with Week­ly Employ­ee Check-Ins

In 2015, DeloitteLinks to an external site. was the first big name to announce it was scrap­ping once-a-year per­for­mance reviews, 360-degree feedback, and objec­tive cas­cad­ing. This change occurred after the com­pa­ny cal­cu­lat­ed these process­es were con­sum­ing remark­able two mil­lion hours a yearLinks to an external site. across the organization.

Deloitte’s new per­for­mance man­age­ment processLinks to an external site. requires every team leader to check in with each team mem­ber once a week to dis­cuss near-term SMART goalsLinks to an external site. and pri­or­i­ties, com­ment on recent work and pro­vide coach­ing. The check-ins are initiated by the team members, rather than the team leaders to ensure these check-ins take place frequently. This also serves to give employees a sense of ownership over their work, role, and time.

These week­ly employ­ee check-ins are sup­port­ed by quar­ter­ly reviews when team lead­ers are asked to respond to four future-focused statements about each team member. Rather than asking team leaders what they think of the team member — which is what tra­di­tion­al per­for­mance rat­ings do — they ask what the team leader would do with the team member.

Direction: 

In at least 10 Slides in PowerPoint Word, conduct research and case analysis, and respond to the following questions: Using the information from the business cases above.

1. What is performance management and why do so many businesses consider it an important element of their talent strategy?

1. Using Equity theory as a framework, how do you think GE, Cargill & Deloitte, as agile organizations, apply this theory to increase employee performance?
2. Based on what you read in the above cases, does employee satisfaction seem to lead to higher performance, or does higher performance lead to satisfaction? Explain
3. Explain how GE, Deloitte & Cargill are fostering employee performance through Herzberg’s theory of motivation. Explain
4. Discuss and explain the digital transformation methods and strategies utilized by the abovementioned companies.
5. Discuss the Organizational Structure and how it might affect the success of the Digital Transformation: [Negatively, or Positively]. 

You are required to cite at least three internal or external sources in your postings, formatted to APA standards.  Avoid citing sources from Wikis, Wikipedia, Dictionary.com, private company websites, and other non-academic references.

Review APA standards: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

Important Note: The following are the requirements for your submission completion. In 2:3 pages, complete your case-study assignment as follows: APA style format with references and citation 

1-Submit the section of the case study that was assigned to you as your role in the teamwork. 

2. Choose different PP slides from the ones used to present in -class.