a People Performance Report has a "Group By" function:
A very handy feature, of course. But: When we add Custom Columns to a Report we usually don't want to group by something, because the Custom Columns are already grouping. But we cannot not group, can we? Or does anyone have a neat trick to remove that grouping?
I've run into the problem before too. My workaround was to find a field in the instance that was pretty much the same for everyone, or at least everyone involved in the report. For example, if the report is targeting only CFOs anyway, I would 'Group by' Job Title and that way, the 'Group by' is only taking up one row (as they're all CFOs), allowing simpler usage of the custom columns. Annoyingly you then just have to ignore the 'Group by' as it's not adding anything additional to the report, but at least it's not making it more complicated! In short, reduce the 'Group by' to one row by cleverly targeting a field that is uniform across the records in the database.
I'm also interested in any other solutions.
Yes, you cannot remove the Group By option in the people performance report's setup. Strangely, I never felt a need to think about a workaround for getting rid of the GroupBy option before (even while using the SL columns), but I can see in some use-cases you'd want all the data to be rolled up in a single row (since SL are doing the job of grouping people). While we cannot remove the GroupBy option, we can ceratinly set it in a way that all the people get grouped in a single row, e.g., set the Group By to Created At, set the unit to years, and set the Person Created At option to this year/the year you're trying to report on.
Obviously, this will not work if you're looking to report on people that were created within a range of years (as the highest unit that you can group people by is year), in that case, you'd want to resort to choosing a Group By field for which the people have same/mostly same values (as Edward notes above).
Thank you guys for the perspective!
Yes, I usually help myself by grouping by an empty field or something else that is not-obtrusive. But I don't particularly like that.
Anyway, I created an idea for this: