A philosophy alive in the system AhnLab's five-year journey

We are curious about what led you to redesign your performance management and job structures in 2021.

At the time we had an ambition for our performance framework to be more concrete. At first we took an interest in OKRs, but we kept asking ourselves whether that was really the right framework for our organization. In that process we began studying performance evaluation and continuous feedback, and we judged that we needed expertise beyond what we had in-house, which is how the consulting engagement began.

This was when the whole process, setting goals, checking in on them continuously and carrying that through to evaluation, was designed for the first time. Multi-rater feedback was designed at the same time. It was the same on the job structure side. Back then my ambition rested on a somewhat vague picture that everyone could become data. That is why we went back and rebuilt the job structure from the ground up, and AhnLab's job taxonomy took its first shape.

Was there a reason you considered adopting a system from the design stage?

I believe a framework is ultimately realized in a system. No matter how much you manage things in Excel and run internal training, we saw that you need a system to actually get the organization moving. Even while we were in consulting, we kept the direction of the system build on the table and discussed the framework alongside it. We reviewed several solutions, but we had doubts about whether a heavily standardized global product would suit our organizational culture and our new operating process, and we made our choice because it let us build on what we had designed in consulting.

We hear you built the job competency framework in a different way.

Performance management was implemented exactly as designed, through the talenx system. The job competency framework, on the other hand, was built separately on the ERP we had at the time. The features themselves were created and we were able to run diagnostics, but because it was not built on an HR solution, there are limits when it comes to using that data in other areas. We are still thinking about that part today. The conclusion we drew then was that a system build has to carry the relevant expertise and philosophy within it.

How is continuous performance management run today?

The process is exactly as it was designed five years ago with the consulting team, and nothing about the frame has changed. What we keep changing and advancing is the way that frame is set in motion. I used to say we were focused on check-ins, but our conclusion now is one-on-ones. You have to meet for a conversation to happen, and observation, feedback and recognition come out of the act of meeting, so we keep encouraging people to hold one-on-ones often. For multi-rater feedback we keep the frame we designed back then and improve only the question format each year based on employee feedback, and the purpose of multi-rater feedback that we heard when it was first designed is still used just as it was in our training programs.

The design stage and five years on

After five years of running talenx, what effect do you feel most strongly?

That clear records remain. Our team leaders cooperate well with our requests, and many of them are genuinely committed to keeping records. It also helps a great deal that the system offers a range of features for each stage of the performance management process, and that there is a frame in which the evaluation process is completed within a set deadline. Multi-rater feedback, evaluations, feedback and even check-in notes are things we often need to look back on, and in settings that call for judgment, such as promotions or the HR committee, that data really does get used a lot.

Was there anything you paid particular attention to in getting employees to use the system well?

We made the manuals extremely detailed from the system's point of view. We kept distributing updated manuals as well, and we created a separate performance tab in our groupware so that it stayed visible. Above all, we set the rule that all communication would take place in the system. Because both the announcements and the confirmations happen in the system, usage settled in naturally to a certain extent.

Also, if the system stutters or is hard to use when I am the one introducing it, it becomes difficult to encourage employees to use it. Because there was none of that inconvenience, emphasizing the use of the system for continuous performance management later on never looked like an unreasonable demand.

Finally, we would like your advice for companies facing similar questions.

When I decide on a vendor, I look at know-how. Building a feature and also knowing why that feature was designed the way it is are two different things. From our side as well, because what we discussed in consulting carried straight through into the system, it was good that the context of the concept and the philosophy was never cut off.

To anyone introducing a new framework, I would say make sure to record why you designed it that way. If you keep only the form without the reasons, it will collapse at some point, but if the reasons remain, you can change things like the question format or the review cycle as much as you like. It is like the way we still use, exactly as they were, the purpose of multi-rater feedback and the meaning of the continuous performance management process that we heard at the design stage in our training programs today.

And adopting a system does not make a framework run by itself. We too have come through five years by making manuals, repeating the guidance and talking continuously with our team leaders. A well-designed philosophy, a system that brings it to life, and the effort of running it while communicating steadily. I believe good results come when those three mesh together.