MGT505 Performance Management

发布时间：2025-10-10

Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

MGT505 Performance Management

Individual Case Study

Performance Management at NovaWave Commerce (pseudonym)

Background

NovaWave Commerce is the international e-commerce arm of a global short-video and social commerce platform. It uses creators, live-stream shopping, and short videos to sell products in North America, Europe, and Southeast Asia. To keep teams aligned, NovaWave uses two main tools: OKR (Objectives and Key Results) to set goals and track results each quarter, and a 360-degree review twice a year to collect feedback from managers, coworkers, and partner teams. An internal information system stores goals, shows progress, and collects feedback.

Helen works as a Recruitment HR Partner (Grade 2-2) for the Europe launch. She plans headcount with local managers, hires across functions (operations, creator partnerships, logistics), and helps new employees settle into their roles. In one quarter, her team reduced the typical time needed to fill key jobs, but the percentage of candidates accepting offers fell after pay guidelines changed. A change in safety and content rules also slowed creator onboarding in two countries. Helen’s manager praised her coordination with other teams. A partner from the creator team liked her speed but felt the hiring standards were “too strict” for new, experimental roles. In Helen’s self-review, she noted that some results were affected by factors outside her control.

Performance Design and Daily Practice

NovaWave breaks company goals into quarterly OKRs at team and individual levels. Teams turn strategy themes—faster delivery, more active creators, better customer experience—into clear targets. Progress is pulled from systems (for example, the hiring system and the order tracking system) and discussed every two weeks. Twice a year, employees write short self-reviews, attach evidence (screenshots, reports, project documents), and invite feedback from their manager and coworkers in other teams. Feedback is usually anonymous to reduce pressure. Final results fall into three bands and link to bonuses, promotions, and access to important projects. Leaders hold comparison meetings to look across teams and countries and to keep standards similar.

The review looks at three areas: performance (what you achieved), engagement/ownership (how steady and responsible you were), and culture fit (called “NovaStyle”: open communication, quick action, learning). Managers are asked to give evidence. Coworkers are asked to give specific examples. In practice, some comments are detailed; others are short. HR removes clearly unhelpful comments but does not rewrite feedback.

Who is responsible for results can be unclear. For example, if stricter content rules slow creator activity, local sales targets may still stay the same. If a global shipping delay increases delivery time, local delivery targets may be missed. Some managers ask for “exceptions” to adjust goals, but there is no clear, company-wide rule. Teams handle this differently. By contrast, when measures are simple and clear (for example, the rate of on-time delivery or the share of creators still active after 30 days), debates are fewer.

Table 1: Evaluation Components and Data Sources

Component	Weight	Data Sources	Criteria
OKRs	50-60%	Company dashboards; hiring system; order tracking system	Business outcomes and quality of execution
360 Feedback	30-40%	Manager, coworkers from own and other teams, self-review	Teamwork, communication, problem solving
Engagement and sense of ownership	10-20%	Short surveys; examples in reviews	Stability, reliability, and care for the work

Table 2: Sample Quarterly OKRs for Recruitment HR (Grade 2-2)

Objective: Build a fast and high-quality hiring process for the European launch (Q3)

KR1: Reduce the typical time to fill 15 key jobs from 42 days to 28 days

KR2: Reach at least 82% offer acceptance across tech, operations, creators

KR3: In final interviews, at least 50% of candidate lists are diverse

KR4: Hiring managers rate hiring support at 4.5 out of 5; candidates’ score (willingness to recommend) is at least +50

Table 3: How Ratings Are Used

Area	How the result is used
Pay and bonus	Decides the range of year-end bonus
Promotion	Input for promotion decisions and “ready soon” lists
Project opportunities	Nominations for new market launches and pilot programs
Development and training	Basis for training, mentoring, and an Individual Development Plan

Stakeholder Views and Tensions

Frontline employees like Helen say the clear goals help them focus and show their impact. Feedback from coworkers sometimes reveals problems that numbers cannot show—for example, issues in the onboarding steps that do not appear in a speed chart. However, collecting evidence and writing reviews takes several days each cycle. Anonymous comments can also focus on personal style instead of work results. Some employees feel the three rating bands do not show enough difference between performance levels. Others feel that comparison meetings create hidden “rankings,” which can increase competition inside teams.

Supervisors value having similar measures across countries because they can compare performance and move resources. They also like that the review includes engagement and culture, which helps them notice burnout early. Still, supervisors struggle when many teams share responsibility for a result. For example, one country leader wanted to remove delivery delays caused by a regional carrier strike from the delivery goal. Another argued that strong ownership should include risk planning, so no exception should be given. HR supports local judgment but has not created one simple rule for such cases.

At the company level, leaders believe the combined OKR plus 360 system supports strategy, talent movement, and a shared culture. The internal tool creates a record that helps with audits and training for managers. But the system also creates heavy administrative work during review seasons. Data privacy laws differ by country; keeping feedback anonymous in one place can conflict with local expectations in another. NovaWave is testing automatic feedback summaries and bias reminders for reviewers, but managers still make final decisions.

Looking Ahead

NovaWave is preparing for the holiday season and a new program for large sellers. The performance team is considering several changes. One idea is to tag each quarterly goal with an “owner” for outside dependencies and write simple rules for when a goal can be adjusted if outside factors change. Another idea is to add team-level awards for collaboration, not just individual results. A third idea is to replace one large mid-year package with short, ongoing feedback and a quarterly summary to reduce workload. The company is also testing clearer behavior rubrics with examples and short training for reviewers. Finance has asked that any new rewards should not make total pay too unstable. Employees want clearer explanations for comparison meeting results and more consistent use of exception rules when outside events affect performance.

Requirements:

You are required to write and submit one individually-written case study essay on Performance Management at Bright Kids English. Your essay will be around 1,500 words long, and will be submitted via Turnitin on the course website on Moodle.

The deadline for submission is 23.59 hours on 14 Nov 2025. Each case study essay must be individually-written. The essay must be your own original and individual work. All submissions will be rigorously checked for plagiarism. If plagiarism is detected in your essay, you will be subject to Lingnan University’s disciplinary rules and procedures. A typical outcome would be zero marks for the assignment plus a demerit issued by the University’s disciplinary committee. You may submit one or more drafts of your essay before the deadline. However, the Turnitin software has built in a delay of 24 hours before providing a plagiarism analysis for resubmitted items. The last draft received before the deadline will be taken as your final submission.

Case Questions (Equally weighted):

1. Explain how performance management at NovaWave Commerce affects employees, their supervisors, and the whole company, including both positive and negative effects.

2. (1) Describe the performance evaluation approaches and the evaluators NovaWave

Commerce currently uses. (2) Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of these practices.

3. Provide recommendations to address the weaknesses identified in Question 2 and to improve performance management at NovaWave Commerce.

Listing References

You are required to list all the sources that you use, in a reference section at the end of your submission. In the main text, if you refer to an idea from another source, you should identify the author and date of publication, e.g. (Smith, 2015). The references section will not be included in the word count.

Marking Rubric

Your essay will be assessed with reference to a scoring rubric, which is appended. Be sure to answer each question and address each criterion in the rubric. This assignment will account for 25% of your total marks for this course. The essay will be marked according to 3 criteria (Your final mark will be converted pro-rata to a mark out of 25).

Generative AI Tools

Declaration of the use of Generative AI tools and the explanation how the generated materials have been incorporated into the assignments should be included in the submitted assignments.

Besides, students should reference the Generative AI generated materials in their work with accepted academic conventions.