The paper "Challenges to Global Performance Management" is an outstanding example of marketing coursework. The realities of today’ s business ecosystem result from three major factors: globalization, increasing business competition increasingly shifting from enterprises to value chains. These are equally increasing customer/consumer dictatorship, thus enriching the definition of business excellence and conventional variables of cost, time and quality with new notions like agility and innovation, eco-responsibility, ethical and social responsibility (Alba, et al. , 2005). Employee Performance Management is at the centre of HR management systems today and defines and quantifies the performance of employees and, the organization as a result based on these new factors.
Simply, performance management is a tool by which to access organizational performance. Most importantly, performance management deals with: employee career development, measuring performance, calculating performance-based pay, etc. In their search for superior performance, organizations have undertaken many performance management practices. However, these practices have enjoyed varying degrees of success, with most of these successes being under par or expectations. As such many have questioned if performance management practices can guarantee sufficient returns to merit a thorough management focus.
In fact, many have somewhat expressed scepticism on the effectiveness of performance management. According to a Reuters report (quoted in Globoforce, 2012) showed 80 percent of US workers are not satisfied with performance reviews. This paper seeks to argue that the key problem, the main challenge to effective implementation of Performance Management lays in the mistaken understanding of Performance Management, equating it to performance appraisal. Part of this effort will include the origin of performance management and some of its positive and negative aspects. Origins of Performance Management Performance Management (PM) started around the 1960s.
Initially, PM was a system of justifying employee income and was used to decide an employees pay in relation to his performance. Equally, organizations used PM as a means to drive employee behaviors toward specific goals. Practically, this system worked for the employees who were motivated by the eventual financial rewards. But it failed for the employees who were driven by the need to learn and further develop their skills. The attempts to justify payment against knowledge gain and skill development, especially in the 1980s, became a big problem for PM.
As such, there came a realization that there was a need for an even more comprehensive system to both manage and reward performance (PeopleStreme, 2011). In about the past two decades, PM has become even more formal and specialized. Many of the initial methods of Performance Appraisal (PA) have been adopted and adapted to the concept of PM, aiming to be a more comprehensive and extensive management process. Some of the developments that PM has gone through in recent years include differentiation of talent and employees management, especially against clearly defined objectives, frequent monitoring and review.
These developments were boosted by: Introduction of HRM as key employee management and development strategy. The understanding that the PM process is carried out throughout the year by line managers, rather than a one-time annual exercise coordinated and conducted by personnel management. Positive Aspects The key issue is whether a company can correctly and effectively implement its specific short-/long-term objectives linked to the operational and strategic plan. If such a success can be attained then the outcomes are likely to rise fast. The CEO’ s plans are best passed down to every single department, team and even individual employees in order to positively influence the outcome.
The employees who perform their roles best earn favorable reviews and bonuses, while those who have not to get poor reviews.
Alba M, Diez L, Olmos E & Rodriguez R 2005, ‘Global performance management for small and medium-sized enterprises (GPM-SME)’, Collaborative Networks and their Breeding Environments, New York: Springer.
Globoforce 2012, ‘Performance management, meet the wisdom of crowds’, White Paper, Feb. 24. http://knowledgehubnetworks.com/executive-management/performance- management-meet-the-wisdom-of-crowds/ (accessed 29 March, 2012)
Management Advisory Committee (MAC) 2001, Performance management in the Australian public service: a strategic framework. Commonwealth of Australia. http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications01/performancemanagement.pdf (accessed 29 March, 2012)
Nankervis, AR & Compton, RL 2006, ‘Performance management: theory in practice?’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 83-101, http://www.uk.sagepub.com/wilton/Online%20readings/Chapter%207/Nankervis %20and%20Compton%20article.pdf (accessed 29 March, 2012)
Noe, RA, Hollenbeck, JR, Gerhart, B. & Wright, PM 1997, Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage., 2nd Ed. Chicago: Irwin.
PeopleStreme 2011, ‘Performance Management’, http://www.peoplestreme.com/what-is- performance-management.shtml (accessed 29 March, 2012)
Simmons, A 2003, ‘When performance reviews fail’, Business Library, Sept. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MNT/is_9_57/ai_107490419/ (accessed 29 March, 2012)
Wright G & Taylor A 2001, ‘Informing effective performance management’, Journal of Finance and Management in Public Services, vol. 1, pp. 7-27, Summer 2001, http://www.cipfa.org.uk/thejournal/download/jour_vol1_no1_a.pdf (accessed 29 March, 2012)