Designing and Implementation of Performance Management System - Essay Example

Employee performance management system Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Employee performance management system Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Institution Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Executive summary Employee management system in a complex professional bureaucracy, for instance a multi campus university is composed of five aspects which include: - work planning and setting expectations; consistent monitoring of employee performance, developing the employee capacity to perform, rating the employee performance periodically and lastly rewarding of employee good performance (Stephen et al 2006 p.78). In order to come up with an effective employee management system, several factors need to be considered such as specific needs of the organization, objectivity in rating factors, appraisals which are free from bias, uniformity in procedures and administration, ease in the system operation, acceptability of the system, financial feasibility of the system, documentation of performance ratings, qualification of raters, the system should allow for monitoring and evaluation, and the support given to the system by the top management (Allan 2010 p. 7). Some of the ways in which employee performance can be assessed are 360 degree feedback surveys, Management by Objectives, Traditional method, Job Rating Checklist, Forced Choice and Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale. For the performance management system to address diversity of the employee’s functions and roles, it is recommended that it should not be discriminatory whatsoever. This paper evaluates effective management system in a university setting. Introduction Performance management is the systematic procedure by which a university involves its employees in the improvement of organizational effectiveness in the achievement of the mission and goals of the organization. Employee performance appraisal is among the most important responsibilities of managers in the organization which has many departments as a university. Performance management systems are significant for the effective management and evaluation of staff. It is important since it helps in developing employees as well as improving organizational performance (Allan 2010 p. 9). It entails work planning and setting expectations whereby performance goals are set in order. These act as guidance for the employees to perform well. The performance standards and elements should be understandable, measurable, equitable, verifiable and achievable. Consistent performance monitoring and ongoing feedback to employees is done towards reaching the organizational goals. Employee developmental needs should be evaluated and addressed which improves the capacity to perform, for instance through training. Without a means of evaluation these cannot be identified. It is thus useful for the organization to summarize the employee performance periodically. This means that the rating is done through evaluating employee performance against the standards and the elements in an employee’s performance plan. Lastly the employee performance system entails the organization’s rewards to the employees. Therefore good performing employees are recognized and their contribution to the organization’s mission and goals is acknowledged. Designing and implementation of performance management system There are several factors which need to be considered when designing and implementing an effective performance management system in a multi campus university. If these factors are ignored, the University may fail to achieve her goals and be a source of frustrations to those that work for her. These factors are as discussed below; Factors considered in designing performance management system The performance system should be focussed to the specific needs of the university. The university’s specific requirements as determined by its function should be considered while designing a performance appraisal system (Sharon & Madelyn 2003 p. 34). It is noted that consultants designing a performance system may be tempted to acquire a system they have installed in another university or they are familiar in order to eliminate the expenses and the difficulties of developing a new system. However, universities usually have different cultures, operation environments, technologies or differ in other important respects. These here factors are very important and must be considered in the designing stage. This means that an effective performance system can only be designed in light of the specific needs of the multi campus and which will satisfy them when adapted. Objectivity in the rating factors should also be considered (Allan 2010 p. 6). Many of the management functions are not truly objective but employers are advised to maximize the degree of objectivity in the performance systems whereby use of subjective factors is avoided such as traits. Appraisal is used for pay, promotion and termination decisions hence they should rely on concrete, objective and observable factors. Dimensions such as dependability, initiative and traits are appropriate and useful if they are expressed in terms of work behaviours and results. For instance, how and when a staff lacked a particular quality is meaningful hence more likely to be accepted. Biasness in the rating employees should also be considered. A multi campus university workforce consists of diverse population. A person’s sex, race, age and other irrelevant factors should not influence the performance ratings. Whether the biases are unconscious or conscious, they are costly and detrimental both to the employer and the employee whereby government laws and court decisions have made it clear that personnel actions which discriminate unfairly are unlawful. This calls for the involvement of all stakeholders in the development process. In a multi University setting, these stakeholders include the professional employees, casual workers, students who in this case evaluate their lecturer as well as the management team. A single rating system will be biased if applied in assessing all these groups of people. The ease with which a performance management system is used is an important factor. This means that the system should be administered with ease and managers should be able to use it without undue effort. For instance, so many forms to complete or which are burdensome to fill out should be avoided. The performance system should not interfere with the normal operation. It should be designed in such a way that it is not too much of a burden for managers (Chatterji & Toffel 2009 p. 160). Predicted potential problems for users should be dealt with in advance. It is therefore good to involve the users from all the university departments in the designing stages of the system in order to identify the potential trouble spot and consider its administration practical aspects. Performance system should be designed and implemented in a way that it is acceptable to the users. This will avoid the users from undermining the system. Financial factors should be considered when designing the performance management system. The costs of designing such as salaries and time of the human resource department staff, relevant managers and outside consultants involved, costs of installation such as salaries of system administrators, orientation and training program administration, and, costs of system operation such as maintenance and processing records by human resource department staff, time of relevant subordinates and managers should be economical. There is a possibility of the top management to scuttle the system if the costs are of financial burden to the organization (Allan 2010 p. 8). Factors considered in the implementation of performance management system Uniform and standardized Procedures and Administration should be applied. A multi campus university has many departments and it is advisable that the system be used uniformly to all employees whether it is used for employee comparisons or not (Terlaak 2007 p. 980). In case it is not uniformly applied, the system is unfair giving preferential treatment to some staff and not to others. Therefore, favouritism either perceived or actual will cause employee cynicism about the system hence its acceptability is affected. Factors such as documentations and record keeping should be considered in the implementation stage. Documentation of performance ratings should be done (Allan 2010 p. 10). The raters should substantiate the ratings given to the employees and must be put in writing. This is because a multi campus university has large number of employees and the supervisors cannot keep in memory the performance rating for each employee. The records in writing should be available for the reasons for the appraisal and the specific instances of performance shortcomings (Allan 2010 p. 10). The written justifications are important during court rulings in case the employees file suit against the employer due to discrimination on the basis of sex, race, or age in making promotions or pay increase merit awards. Moreover, documentation is important in the event where the employee sues the employer on the ground that he/she is discharged without a good basis (Seifert et al 2003 p. 565). Training of raters is a factor to consider (Donald 2006 p. 45). Different levels of employees in the campus are evaluated by different raters. Qualified raters are needed hence they should be trained on the system philosophy, that is, how it complies with the goals and strategies of the university, how it will assist managers, and actual system mechanics. Raters should be trained in order to assist them develop skills for observing and recording the employees behaviour and providing proper feedback (Donald 2006 p. 63). Performance system should allow for Monitoring and Evaluation since it is not possible to design a system that will work perfectly when initially installed but careful preparation and follow up is needed. The time needed for evaluation of a new system depends on factors such as the number of people covered and the organization climate (Stephen et al 2006 p. 82). The last factor to be considered in the implementation of the performance system is the support from the top management (Allan 2010 p. 4). The support is very significant in the success of the system. The system is meant to fail without the support of the top management no matter how well it is designed. It is considered that the subordinates and the supervisors in the various departments in the university usually take their cue from the top and can really sense when the management is not interested or concerned with the system (Allan 2010 p. 4). Diversity of staff functions and roles A competitive advantage is gained by a multi campus university which is reinforced by an effective performance appraisal system (Sharma & Vredenburg 1998 p. 732). Accurate assessments of staff quality and productivity of work due to an effective performance appraisal motivate employees to achieve higher levels of performance through providing helpful feedback to the employees. The workforce of a multi campus university is composed of different ranks of job positions whereby we have casual workers, secretaries, lecturers, departmental heads, administrators and other top management positions which contribute to diverse roles and functions of the staff (Gary & John 2009 p. 25). The performance management system should therefore be designed in a way that it will cater for the diverse roles of each employee category without discriminatory of any category. It is noted that the workforce of a university is also made up of large numbers of diverse population which include women, disabled, professional workers, casual workers and ethnic minorities. In order to achieve the diversity in the workforce, it calls for implementation of non-discriminatory performance management system. This means that in order for the system to address the diverse roles and functions of the staff, it should focus on the essential true features of the job descriptions on each category which is based on measurable and clear performance criteria (Allan 2010 p. 7). The physically challenged employees should be considered whereby the designed performance system should have special implications for the same. Moreover, the growing use of teams in multi campus universities which requires proper team management skills, the employers should carefully think on how the performance system will properly be implemented especially in rewarding employees for their performance. Options for staff performance assessment There are several ways in which the performance of staff can be assessed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages. These methods include:- Multi-Rater Assessments (360 degree feed back surveys) This is a system that integrates evaluations from an individual’s co-workers, supervisors and also other people outside the institution who the person regularly works with (Atkins & Wood 2002 p. 901). For instance, lecturers in the university can be evaluated by the students. Each person involved completes a questionnaire which the employee completes as well. The advantages of this method include: - it is the method that gives the most comprehensive view of employee performance since the evaluation of the staff involves a wide range of people therefore it is more accurate and it is beneficial for staff’s self development. Credibility of the appraisal result is increased since unfairness of the result is minimized for it contains everyone’s point of view. The staff’s self development is enhanced as a result of the feedback from peers whereby peers know more about the areas the staff needs to improve than the manager. Moreover, the staff get an opportunity to complain to the manage without adhering to normal complaint procedures which assists the staff to voice out their discontent and what they need to be done (Atkins & Wood 2002 p. 903). However, there are several disadvantages associated with the method which include: - it is very complex to administer and time consuming hence cannot be implemented frequently. There is possibility of the method to generate an environment of cynicism and suspicion where by the implementation needs to be done in an honest and open environment. Lastly there is risk of confidentiality in case the 360 degree process is outsourced to other organizations whereby some of the information is very sensitive and if disclosed carelessly it is detrimental to the organization (Atkins & Wood 2002 p. 903). Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) This method is designed to entail the skills and traits required in performing a job successfully. The BARS rating scale just ranks the behavioural patterns, for instance, from ‘very poor’ to ‘excellent’. It is noted that the effectiveness of the bars depends on the appropriateness and accuracy of the behaviour statements. The advantages of this method are that, potential biased responses are minimal since it focuses on observable and specific behaviours and its assessment for job criterion is derived from actual job performance hence meets the guidelines for fair employment provided by EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The disadvantages includes: - it is difficult and time consuming to establish especially for the positions which have changing requirements and it has similarity to trait measures hence less preferred (Chatterji & Toffel 2009 p. 146). Job Rating Checklist It is the simplest method to use. Prepared questions or statements related to the specific aspects of the job performance which are answered with a ‘No’ or ‘Yes’ are given to each evaluator. Some of the advantages of this method are that, there is involvement of less paper worker and there is wide availability of generic forms to customize. However, its disadvantage is that, for the positions whose job descriptions keep on changing such as casual workers this method is not applicable (Sharman 1996 p. 285). Management By Objectives (MBO) This is the most widely used appraisal system nowadays. A supervisor and a credit professional have a meeting at the beginning of an analysis period whereby they come up with a set of statements that represent ideal job goals that are measurable and specific as possible. This method is beneficial as it enables both parties to objectively measure the progress throughout the evaluation period. One of its drawbacks is that, a trained specialist is needed to implement it in order to achieve maximum effectiveness. Another disadvantage is that there is possibility of some supervisors using it as a control devise that intimidates rather than motivates subordinates (Shaman & Vredenburg 1998 p. 732). Traditional method The method entails one supervisor solely responsible for the evaluation (Maylett 2005 p. 42). Though one of the easiest to implement, it forces the employees to be tied between objectivity and subjectivity. The method is preferred because of its one advantage that it is economical and simple to implement. However, it is considered that this method usually works to the advantage of average performers who get along with their boss hence the method lacks objectivity. Forced choice The method consists of two forms, that is, paired statement and forced ranking. A supervisor is given two options and must indicate the one which best describes the employee in the paired statement method. In the forced ranking, the supervisor is provided with several possibilities whereby one is allowed to pick a description which may fall in between two extremes. The advantage of this method is that it promotes objectivity and reduces bias. The disadvantage is that it is not well applicable in assessment of behaviours which are difficult to quantify (Gary & John 2009 p. 211). Frequency of performance reviews A survey conducted by Atkins & Wood (2002 p. 903) in several multi campus universities in UK indicated that the frequency of employee performance reviews range from zero to 13 per year. The employees who received reviews less than three times per year, required more while those who received more than four times needed fewer. The employees with 13 preferred to receive zero. Approximately 75% of the employees interviewed indicated to have received reviews two or fewer times per year. The advantage of frequent performance reviews is that it allows for performance improvement of the employees. This is due to the feedback given back to the employees on the areas needing improvement and the rewards given to the best performers in the university. However, one of the disadvantages frequent performance reviews is that, performance appraisals are costly and time consuming hence they impose interruptions to the normal operations of the university (Seifert et al 2003 p. 569) Recommendations In the implementation of performance management system in a multi campus university, it is recommended that in order to avoid bias, university should use punishment of unacceptable supervisory behaviour, explicit policy declarations and trainings (Sharon & Madelyn 2003 p. 77). The courts and the government enforcement agencies consider employer’s good faith efforts in dealing with discriminatory behaviour favourable. In order to ensure standardized application of the system, it is recommended that the university should think of including periodic trainings, definition of terms used in performance evaluation, close monitoring and issuance of clear instructions to the raters. A pre- test or a pilot run of the system should be done in one department of the university before it is implemented which will enable identify and solve problems. It is recommended that in order to promote the system acceptance, users should be involved in the designing stages. The involvement of the employees will be beneficial since they will be able to identify possible weaknesses in the system hence come up with suggestions for improvement. The employees should be notified of the expected performance prior to the rating period starts (Taylor & Francis 2009 p. 46). It is advisable to give periodic feedback on performance which will enhance acceptance of the system by the employees. In order to avoid resentment and surprises during annual performance review, it is recommended that the university top management should notify employees of performance shortcomings when they occur and giving them an opportunity to correct the weaknesses is necessary. It is considered that careful planning and close monitoring of the system expenses will assist in preventing the costs from getting out of control hence ensuring that the operation of the performance system is economical. Documentation of employee ratings is beneficial in that the raters are motivated to give greater thought to their reviews therefore it is recommended that raters should be supplied with written instructions and guidelines which will assist them in coming up with proper ratings which will strengthen the documentation hence the courts will regard the ratings favourable (Gary & John, 2009, p. 219). For proper training to the raters, it is recommended that use of role plays, behaviour modelling through films and discussions should be utilized more than depending on lectures (Brethower & Karolynn, 1998 p. 37). The trainings should be conducted close to the implementation date to avoid instructions being forgotten. The raters should be provided with written guidelines for reference and periodic retraining is preferred for reinforcing the initial learning. It is recommended that monitoring of the system should regularly be done in order to identify weaknesses and areas needing improvement in the system design and administration (Allan 2010 p. 7). This entails removal and addition of some features. Interviews with raters, ratees and top management of the university are the best in revealing the areas of dissatisfaction and satisfaction. Also additional information such as rating errors and appraisals not completed on time can be obtained from examining records. For the performance system to succeed, the top management is recommended to be committed which can be manifested through reinforcing strong policy statements that can be backed by rewarding managers who make the system succeed through incentives and to the uncooperative managers, impose heavy penalties (Terlaak 2007 p. 970). The system should be considered as top management project but not for human resource management department, therefore the support from the top should not be onetime event but there should be periodic reminders of the system endorsement by the management. The best option recommended for employee performance assessment is the Multi Rater Assessment (360 feedback survey) for its advantages outweighs the disadvantages (Atkins & Wood, 2002, p. 900). In a multi campus university, the employee performance affects a large number of population groups such as students, therefore the option is recommended for the evaluation is inclusive of all the affected groups. Conclusions Performance management system is significant to a multi campus university with many departments and is an instrument for social control despite the challenges faced in designing and implementing it. Every multi campus university must ensure that the implemented management system meets its need in promoting the achievement of set goals and objectives. This will ensure employee and customer satisfaction in service delivery. Performance appraisals are more often avoided than held due to their complexity and time consuming but if proper factors are considered in designing and implementation of the system, it becomes easy to administer. The performance system should therefore be designed in such a way that it concurs with the university mission and goals. Proper assessment option should be chosen such as 360 feedback surveys that will provide more acceptable results to the entire university community (Atkins & Wood, 2002, p. 873). Though implementing a performance management system is costly, it cannot be compared with the benefits reaped when proper design and implementation is ensured. The challenges faced should thus not be seen as a hindrance to its implementation but rather a means to achieving full benefits. Bibliography Atkins, P, & Wood, R, 2002, Self-versus others' ratings as predictors of assessment center ratings, Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs, Personnel Psychology, 55(4), 871–904. Brethower, & Karolynn, S, 1998, Performance- based Instruction, Linking Training to Business Results, 6(3) 23-67. Chatterji AK, & Toffel, W, 2009, How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18(1), 125-169 Donald, K, 2006, Improving employee performance through appraisal and coaching, California AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Gary, C, & John, W, 2009, Performance Management, Integrating Strategy Execution, Methodologies, Risk, and Analytics, 34(6), 210-321 Maylett, T, 2005, The Relationship Of Multi-rater Feedback To Traditional Performance Appraisal, California, Pepperdine University Allan, P, 2010, Designing and implementing an effective performance appraisal system, Review of Business, 45(3), 1-11 Seifert, C, Yukl, G, & McDonald, R, 2003, Effects of multisource feedback and a feedback facilitator on the influence of behavior of managers toward subordinates, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 561–569. Sharma, s, & Vredenburg, H, 1998, Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities, strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 729-753 Sharman, M, 1996, Social performance ratings data, journal of Business Ethics, 15(3), 287-296. Sharon, A, & Madelyn, A, 2003, Stress-Free Performance Appraisals, Turn Your Most Painful Management Duty Into a Powerful Motivational Tool, New York, Career Press. Stephen, L, Antigone, E, A, & Anne, A, 2006, Pre-written employee performance appraisals, the complete guide to successful employee evaluations and documentation, with companion CD-ROM, London, Atlantic Publishing Company Taylor & Francis (2009), Behavior Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 2(12), 34-67 Terlaak, A, 2007, Order without law? The role of certified management standards in shaping socially desired firm behaviors, Academy of Management Review journal, 32(3), 968 985 Read More