At your organization, do you break apart the Performance Management approach by role or do you try to combine to a single form that holds all employees to the same standards - setting goals, assessed against the same requirements? As a new Talent Management Director, I am assessing the current Performance Management approach at our company. Currently, we have two distinct forms - one for our manufacturing population (working in manufacturing environment and producing tangible products, including some union) and one for the rest of the company. 

Hi, unfortunately our hourly workers are not yet digitally connected to have access to our HRIS so there the local teams have a separate process, also as they are subject to a CBA/CLA salary adjustments are calculated differently so keeping the processes separated, does work for the local HR teams. All other employees follow the same performance cycle which ties in to merit and bonus calculations with end to end connected process flows in Workday

It might be easiest to how a question that determines which approach is best.

I'd suggest this one: How predictable is the environment in which people work?

Here's why I think it's relevant.

In a predictable environment, setting SMART goals makes sense. You often have more business measurement systems, e.g. # widgets produced, defect rate etc. and forecasting is easier, if not essential. So in this type of environment you can meet the SMART criteria for goals and you can have a periodic (monthly, quarterly) assessment process because the business is constantly measuring and monitoring output.

If the environment is unpredictable, SMART goals are not a smart option. 

In an unpredictable environment: 
- You can't be specific because you don't know exactly what will happen 132 days from now.
- It's very difficult to be measurable, because of the number of dependencies and variables.
- Attainable is relative to the resources you have, which might be far less or far more than you currently have.
- A "realistic" goal will set it as low as possible, because no one wants to set a stretch goal if they are uncertain if they can achieve it.
- Being time bound when deadlines are constantly moving is impossible.

In this type of environment you need to look at rolling reviews. Think about it this way. You are taking a trip from New York to San Fransisco, you have a general idea of how long it should take and what it requires to get their by car, but there could be a lot of unpredictability. You could run out of gas, take wrong turn, get stuck in a jam. A rolling review will monitor progress, not just measure an outcome.

So it's not only two different forms, but two different processes.

2 forms.  the manufacturing form is shorter and more relevant to their roles.  the one for salaried is longer and involves competencies.

we are working a redesign on this as we speak.  right now we use pretty much a common form but we have different practices. In our plant, we only do an annual review and goals are pretty much pre-set. For our professional staff we have a much more robust planning/development, talent reviews etc. - but have different forms for different depts based upon preference and in some cases, have forms based upon preferences of managers.  We are working to drive a more consistent approach on all fronts, how to do goals, how to do ratings, when and how to do conversations throughout the year etc.  We are not starting from scratch but are working to standardize and simplify experiences.

One form for all unless it’s a retail and HQ then it’s different forms for those groups. It’s usually based on goals so not super specific for their actual role which allows us to use one form.