Human Resource and Performance Management - Essay Example

Running Head: Performance Management Name Course Instructor Date In any give organization, human resource is the most important asset, which works towards the goals and objectives of the entire organization (Armstrong, 2008). Managing human resources therefore is one of the most paramount aspects in the running of an organization. Many organization have implemented was of evaluating their workforce performances to ensure that, the progress of the organization is monitored and evaluated so that changes can be enacted if need be, to improve the performance of the entire organization. Performance management and performance appraisal are the methodologies used to access all that pertains the performance of the organization (Boland & Fowler, 2000). Performance appraisal is the activity through which an organization seeks to assess the workforce and develop its competence, enhance performance and even distribute rewards (Armstrong, 2008). In other words performance appraisal is all about an individual. Performance management on the other hand is a system which an organization uses for management of organizational performance, employees performance and most importantly as a leeway to integrate the organizational performance and the employee’s performance in an organization (Pidd, 2005). This therefore means that, performance management is all about the organization. It is therefore note worthy that, performance appraisal and performance management differs in a big way in their activities. The main difference of the two is exonerated by the fact that performance appraisal concentrates on the individual while performance management is concerned greatly with the organization (Pollitt, 2005.). It is therefore noteworthy that, performance appraisal works towards evaluating individual performance (Radnor & McGuire, 2004) which is aimed at the good of the individual. For example, its purpose is for individuals development or any sort of reward (Kuhlmann, 2010). As for the management system, it is a set of activities that are used to evaluate whether the goals and objectives of the entire organization are being met which is done through setting goals, defining work, providing feedback and encouraging development (Talbot, 2008). Performance management systems generally include performance appraisal and employee development which are key activities for the human resource management in any given organization (Armstrong, 2008). It has been agreed that performance management systems helps improve performance through establishing clear goals and feedback. However, this is not without controversy. In many cases, performance management is personal and it has been deemed as a threatening process for managers and their subordinates. But it is worth noting that, performance management is a very important tool that can be used to assist an organization to realize its goals and objectives (Radnor & McGuire, 2004). If done correctly, it outcome is substantially important in an organization, to the managers and also to the employees. When designing a management system, it is very important to have the needs of organization in mind for instance defining what purpose the system will serve (Armstrong, 2008). A performance management system that is designed to achieve too many objectives is likely to be unsuccessful due to lack of focus (Swiss, 2005). This therefore means that, for a performance management system to achieve all its goals and also should have well calculated process which is aimed at accomplishing evaluation activities which clearly outline role and timelines for managers and the employees. To have a successful performance management system, the managers must know that it is not an administrative task but a tool to drive results. Performance management system involves training, team work, dialogue, management style, shared vision, incentives and rewards just to mention but a few (Armstrong, 2008). It is therefore a prerequisite to have a consistent communication process in partnership with the employees and the managers which involves having a clear expectation and understanding about the job functions the employee is supposed to undertake and the how their job contribute to the performance of the organizational goals and objectives (Levy & Williams, 2004). Communication should be emphasized so make known to the employees what is expected of them. It should be multidirectional. In other words it should run top down, bottom up and horizontally within and across the entire organization (Armstrong, 2008). This can be enacted by using interactive and group oriented mechanism like the use of update meeting and group meetings, through the print media like the use of reports and publications and through the use of technology, like the use of emails, video conferencing and internet systems and finally by the use of routine placement of progress charts in work areas. Without communication, the work force will be working in a vague manner with any direction and this will result to a failed system in the long run (Levy & Williams, 2004). Training is yet another aspect which is very importance in the success of a performance management system. First those who are involved in the management and supervision of the whole system need to be trained. This in the first place should be directed in equipping them with the best information about managing people effectively. In this case, training should revolve around managing, motivating and evaluating employee performance (Armstrong, 2008). Those who will have hand on experience in administering the program should be adequately trained and in return they train lower level supervisors and this will in the long run ensure that everybody will at least be aware of everything that is in the system. This will help the managers and the supervisor be competent in maintaining the important skills in performance assessment (Levy & Williams, 2004). Concerning the employees, training activities should be based on performance gaps. This will ensure that they are specific and relevant. This is also attributed to the fact that, training and development interventions and regular performance feedback are very vital factors in skills retention (Armstrong, 2008). Moreover, it must have an emphasis in developing a persons skills and knowledge so as to improve his/her job performance, which on the other hand will help the organization reach its goals and objectives. Failure to have adequate training and development provisions, the systems is prone to failure (Levy & Williams, 2004). The management performance system must take measures of accountability into consideration if it has to be successful failure to which its failure is inevitable. Employees and managers must assume responsibility for some part of the performance measurement system. In this case, for the success of the entire process, each performance measure must have an owner who is responsible for it (Armstrong, 2008). Employees for instance need to know how the measurements for which the have the accountability relates to the overall success or failure of the organization at large. In short they need to know how their performance will affect the bottom line (Levy & Williams, 2004). When employees are empowered with the obligation of making decisions and solve problems connected to what they are accounted to, will be a better platform for them to meet or even exceed performance goals. Finally when there is accountability, there has to be an expectation of a reward incases of good performance and penalties incase of poor performance (Armstrong, 2008) Compensation equity influences the success of the failure of a performance management system. Compensation equity is the situation whereby employees examine their inputs and outputs, compare them and make judgment on the fairness of the compensation (Levy & Williams, 2004). Inputs in this case include, length of service, education, experience, responsibility and pressure and quality job performance, mentioning just but a few(Armstrong, 2008). Outputs include pay and benefits, promotions and intrinsic rewards. A perception of an under compensation of overcompensation may result to anger and guilt which will affect the performance of the victims. It is worth noting that, the involved employees might work towards altering inputs or outputs by using psychological justification or even different comparison so as to regain equity (Levy & Williams, 2004). Organization must work towards achieving equity to have successful systems. There are three types of equity: External, internal and individual equity. External equity is when an employee compared with another one with the same responsibilities but from a different employer (Levy & Williams, 2004). It should be achieved through the use of labor market pay surveys. Internal equity is a comparison of a different job but the same employer which can be achieved by the use of job evaluation plans. Finally individual equity when the comparison other has the same job and the same employer. Where equity is present, good performance is recorded (Armstrong, 2008). Performance management systems are directed to having a better performance in the organization. Therefore and organization has to accurately define everything about their job descriptions (Levy & Williams, 2004). This will in the long run ensure that, employees only do what has been delegate to them accountably and also monitor the progress of their performance. Failure to do this, Vagueness is inevitable and will result to employee blaming blame their seniors, environment, systems or even each other, incase of any failure. There is therefore a need to have job descriptions for every individual which should be an outline of key tasks in accountability (Armstrong, 2008). Employees who trust their manager and performance management system are more likely to focus on adding value to the organization which in the long run will result to an increased productivity (Kuhlmann, 2010). When an employee is not concerned about being vulnerable to the managers or supervisors, his/her passive behavior is more likely to promote organizational performance. This therefore entails that; trust must be cultivated in the entire organization so as to realize a successful performance management system. Failure to this, there are high probabilities that they system is prone to failure (Boswell & Boudreau, 2002). The information required in the performance management system must be transparent, easy to access and complete, easy to use and understand (Kuhlmann, 2010). This will enhance dialogue about the improvement of performance which will in the long run help improve resource management, make better policies and make sure that all the stakeholder shave been catered for in the entire system. Failure to have transparency will culminate to opposition from some parties and hence fail (Rao, 2004). It is very vital to avoid errors so as to have a successful performance management system. Performance appraisal mistakes may be minimized and even eliminated by working on the performance standards (Kuhlmann, 2010). One of the mistakes is rate error which includes halo effects, pitchfork effect, central tendency error leniency/strictness error, avoiding the negatives biasness’s. for instance halo effect happens when an employee over all performance on the basis of one strong point (Isaac, 2001). This being the case, employees may get favorable or unfavorable rating which is based on employee’s performance of one highly valued trait. Moreover, when a supervisor uses an employee potential for future growth or recent careers progress to influence or even determine the review results to halo effect (Levy & Williams, 2004). Pitchfork effect is yet another error which is an opposite of halo effect. This is common when a rater dislikes a certain trait. This results to biasness and a tendency to rate negatively if an employee exhibits traits that a rater dislikes (Levy & Williams, 2004). This in the long run affects the morale of employees. To avoid it, raters should evaluate each responsibility or performance item separately. Moreover having comments also helps evade pitch effect (Keeping & Levy, 2000). Managers and supervisors may be reluctant in giving very low or very high ratings for being unconformable with the control they perceive to have over other employees. This results to an error which is referred to as central tendency error (Levy & Williams, 2004). In this case, they need to be assured that, good performance; average performer and even poor performance are common in any give n organization (Armstrong, 2008). Basing the performance appraisal from the recent behavior rather than the one demonstrated over a period of time gives rise to a recency error. To alleviate this, there is a need to document any critical incidence through out the period and this will mean that the rater will not rely on memory to appraise an individual (Levy & Williams, 2004). Avoiding any negative feedback to employees is an error that raters incur when trying not to be very hard on the individual perception (Kuhlmann, 2010). However, delivering the criticism should be done in a way that it is cultivating for skills development to the employees. Finally contrast error happens when rating is done to people relative to others other than their performance. Rater should use performance to rate employee entirely. Conclusively, performance management and performance appraisal are two very important tools which if implemented in any organization, can help utilize the human resource so as to achieve the goals and objectives, while having satisfied, skilled and motivated work force. Their implementation should be done consultatively so as to avoid collations of even opposition. Reference Armstrong, M. (2008). Handbook for Human Resource Management. London: Kogan Page. Boswell, W. R. and Boudreau, J. W. (2002). ‘Separating the developmental and evaluative performance appraisal uses’. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16: 391–412. Boland, T. and Fowler, A. 2000. “A Systems Perspective of Performance Management in Public Sector Organizations,” International Journal of Public Sector Management 13 (5): 417 446. Isaac, J. E. (2001). ‘Performance related pay: the importance of fairness’. Journal of Industrial Relations, 43: 111–23. Keeping, L. M. and Levy, P. E. (2000). ‘Performance appraisal reactions: measurement, modeling and method bias’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85:708–23. Levy, P. E. and Williams, J. R. (2004). ‘The social context of performance appraisal: a review and framework for the future’. Journal of Management, 30: 881–906. Kuhlmann, Sabine. 2010. “Performance Measurement in European Local Governments: a comparative analysis of reform experiences in Great Britain, France, Sweden and Germany,” International Review of Administrative Sciences 76 (2): 331-345. Swiss, James E. 2005. “A Framework for Assessing Incentives in Result-based management,” Public Administration Review 65 (5): 592-602. Rao, T. V. (2004). Performance Management and Appraisal System: HR Tools for Global Competitiveness. London: Sage. Pollitt, Christopher. 2005. “Performance Management in Practice: A Comparative Study of Executive Agencies,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16: 25- 44. Pidd, M. 2005. “Perversity in Public Service Performance Measurement,” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 54 (5/6): 482-293. Talbot, Colin. 2008. “Performance Regimes: the Institutional Context of Performance Policies,” International Journal of Public Administration 31: 1569-1591. Radnor, Zoe and McGuire, Mary. 2004. “Performance Management in the Public Sector: Fact or Fiction?” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 53 (3): 245-260. Read More