When It Comes to Employee Performance - Essay Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2012 Introduction Employee performance is a key organizational resource that enhances survival as it determines business growth. Research also indicates that good employee performance is evidently a source of competitive advantage for the organization in view of the fact that better employee performance translates to increased productivity and efficiency while increasing competitiveness. In addition it facilitates the achievement of the strategic objectives of the organization as the set goals are attained in a timely manner. While the basic objective of the management when it comes to performance is to ensure that the employees are able to perform their tasks effectively and attain the objectives of the organization, on the other hand, when evaluating the perspective of the employees concerning performance, a contentious question arises. The question is whether the ends are more important than the means. This particular paper therefore seeks to evaluate the notion of whether; when it comes to employee performance, the ends are more important than the means. Foremost, it is essential to evaluate the concept of the ends being important than the means when it comes to employee performance. According to Campbell (1990) performance is basically; behaviour or actions that are performed by employees. Performance does not have to be specifically in terms of visible behaviour but rather it can entail decisions, mental productions and even answers (Campbell, 1990). The concept of the means can categorically be defined as the behaviours of the employees. On the other hand, the ends are the results that are derived from the means (behaviour). Some of the components of the ends include, revenue generated, competencies such as knowledge and skills, employee rewards or earnings, productivity, employee value proportions, team work and a healthy working environment. Employee competency is a one fundamental aspect that can back notion; when it comes to employee performance, the ends are more important than the means. In general competency is the ability of an employee to perform a task effectively. It entails the behaviour, skills and knowledge that are used in order to enhance performance. Spencer and Spencer (1993) proposed that competency consists of underlying characteristics within a person. Spencer and Spencer (1993) therefore identified five types of competencies which include motives, traits, self concept, knowledge and skills. Spencer and Spencer (2003) assert that the first three competencies; motives, traits, self concept, are more essential because they direct behaviour or they are the means to attain the desired behaviour. On the other hand knowledge and skills indicate ones ability to perform the tasks as a result they are the results. According to Saenthong (2004) competent employees are a major resource for any organizations to gain a competitive advantage. As a result , the demand for competent workforce has increased, leading to organizations investing in competency modeling strategies such as job design, training , organizational learning, performance improvements and career management in order to enhance and maintain competence in the workforce. Organizations have also adopted a matrix that is used to evaluate the competency levels of employees; this has resulted to ranking of employees to levels such as exceptional performers, successful performers and unsatisfactory performers. Due to the existence of such rankings in terms of employee proficiency it can be argued that employees have been subjected to perceiving the ends to be much more important than the means. As highlighted by Spencer and Spencer (2003) employees exhibit knowledge and skills as visible and technical competencies. In addition other forms of competencies do exist which are much more hidden deep within an individual personality this include; motive competencies, traits and self concept. High performance can be attained when the underlying competencies are well developed for instance if the attitude of an employee towards a certain job is positive then they will always perform the task effectively (Spencer & Spencer, 2003). On the other hand if an employee possesses technical competencies such as knowledge and skill however without a positive attitudes and motive which exists deep within, then the performance of the employee on the task can decline, in case external factors such as decline in pay or motivation emerges and affects their performance. For instance this explains the reason why employee whose competencies are majorly grounded on knowledge and skills such as knowledge workers, teachers, health care workers have sometimes been reprimanded for poor performance. In most cases such employees perform their task with the perspective that they have visible competencies such as knowledge and skills. However in most cases their internal competencies such as their attitudes towards their work, drives and their motives are not positive. This has therefore resulted to poor performance by such employees. Many organizations are therefore striving to change this particular culture among employees. Another dominant rationalization supporting the notion that the ends are more important than the means is the prominent analogy that lack of an appropriate reward structure leads to poor workforce performance (Mae, 2011). Managers have therefore adopted various reward strategies in order develop a motivated workforce that can perform their tasks effectively. Rewards systems such as high paying salaries, performance linked incentives, such as pay for performance, bonuses , stock options and even profit sharing, have been utilized by managers in order attach performance and employee earnings (Langley,2008). In deed many studies conducted to evaluate the link between performance and earnings shows that a poor reward system frequently results to poor performance (Stack, 2010). A case in point is a study conducted by Chiang & Birtch (2011) to examine the impact of the reward climate on service quality orientation. Chiang and Birtch (2011) undertook a study on the Hong Kong hotel industry to evaluate how the compensation systems adopted by the hotel industry influenced the service quality provided by the workforce. Chiang and Birtch (2011) highlight that initially the quality of services that were provided by the employees in the industry were basically low as opposed hotels in other counties. However when changes were made on the reward structures, the service quality offered by the employees greatly improved. The findings therefore verified a great meaning in terms of how ends in terms of employee earnings are more essential to the workforce. If the rewards are suitable or adequate then performance is greatly improved (Chiang and Birtch, 2011). A good number of theoretical arguments can also be used to back the notion that when it comes to employee performance, the ends are more important than the means. The theories are basically motivational theories that explain the link between performance and the rewards or the ends that employees receive. One of the dominant theories is the Malsow theory. The theory proposes that there are five motivational stages that have to be fulfilled in order to motivate employees. The five stages include biological needs such as food, air, warmth, sleep and many others. Safety needs include security, stability, limits and order. Love and belonging needs include achievement, self esteem, dominance and mastery .The last level is the self actualization needs, this includes attaining self fulfillment, personal fulfillment and growth (Armstrong, 2006). Maslow argues that fulfilling these needs is basically the most important aspect for employees. As a result based on Maslow’s analogy it can be argued that the ends are more important than the means. Another theory is the expectancy theory that was proposed by Victor Vroom in 1964. The theory propagates that employees perform their tasks in a particular manner based on the expected outcomes that are linked to a particular behaviour (Friedman, et al 2008). Vroom reveled that people usually put in a lot of effort if they have an expectation that the performance will result to a reward. Consequently, if the rewards or outcomes are lucrative, then the performance of the employee is bound to be high in order for them to gain their expected rewards (Pietrzyk, 2007). The path goal theory is another premise that supports the notion that when it comes to employee performance, the ends are more important than the means. According to the path goal theory , the major question that runs through the minds of every employee as they perform their tasks is ; ‘’ what will I benefit or gain out of performing this task?’’. As a result if an employee sees that higher productivity is a path that leads to the achievement of one of more of their personal objectives, then the employee is motivated to put in a greater amount of effort. Consequently the practicability of the goal theory is grounded on the expectancy theory; in the sense the human resource, cognitively determine their chosen behaviour on the basis of the outcomes or rewards that are associated to the task (Miner, 2007). For instance a study conducted by Güngör ( 2011) to evaluate the relationship between employee performance, the application of reward systems and motivation , revealed that the ends are more important than the means for many employees . The study involved undertaking a quantitative analysis of employees in a number of global banks. The findings of the study revealed that when rewards systems were developed into performance-pay reward systems, the performance of the employees within the banking sector greatly improved. Güngör (2011) highlights that; the perceived features of extrinsic motivation greatly influenced how the employees performed their tasks. The major emphasis of the employees was on the rewards which had an impact on their performance. Other versions of the expectancy theory also highlight that the process of employee attaching their performance to their expected rewards also results to a scenario whereby gambling determines the choices and the performance of the workforce (DuBrin, 2008). For instance the recent financial crisis which led to poor performance by many organizations was linked to employees perceiving the ends to be much more important than the means. A case in point is within financial institutions specifically banks whereby the incentives given to the top management influenced great deal of risk taking behaviour (Gregg et al, 2011). Gregg et al, 2011) highlights that before the crisis, the management of financial institutions were compensated on grounds of their performance, whereby if the organization earned more profits in the short-term period then the manager would get an increase in the bonuses they received. This strategy did pay off and encouraged many managers to get involved in risk taking deals which would lead to earning short –term profits however in the long-run, such banks experienced huge losses(Gregg et al, 2011). The involvement of the managers in risk taking investments was basically an indication of the fact that, when it comes to the employee performance, the end is actually much more important than the meas. This is also supported by the expectancy theory whereby employees focus more on their expected outcome which further influences their behaviour or their performance. Other than the benefits derived from compensation/rewards such as, such as pay for performance, bonuses, stock options and even profit sharing, the ends in terms of productivity also justify the notion that when it comes to employee performance ends are more important than the means. One of the major characteristics of the ends is that they can accurately be specified and can be measured than the means. For instance the aspect of the productivity as an end can be measured. This is why managers usually use performance evaluations and appraisals in order to measure the productivity of the employee (Sheahan, 2012). If an employee scores highly in terms of productivity, they can be awarded something like a promotion or a raise. Sheahan, (2011) highlights that; the system of measuring productivity is reflection of the employee’s behaviour. It can therefore be argued that based on the fact that the ends are basically more measurable than the means, then employees are bound to focus more on ensuring that their productivity is greater in order for their productivity to reflect o their behaviour or performance. Good working environments can also be used to justify the notion that when it comes to employee performance the ends are more important than the means. Winfrey (2007) highlights that; a positive working environment is characterized by team spirit, good communication, appreciation and recognition of the employees and trust. When a positive working environment is created within the working environment them employees are bound to intrinsically motivated. Intrinsic motivation signifies the aspiration to do something basically due to the fact that it is enjoyable. Motivational researchers acknowledge that situational variables that exists within an individual result to the achievement of a certain positive behaviour. Therefore if an employee is intrinsically motivated, by a positive or good working environment they are bound to strive inwardly to be proficient at their tasks (Gollowitzer 1996). It can therefore be argued that a suitable working environment is rather a more important factor to employee performance as opposed to their behaviour or performance. For instance it has frequently been noted that poor working environments such as harsh working conditions and exploitative management practices have frequently resulted to poor performance among employees and even strikes and go slows, which further affect the performance of the organization. According to Hill & Tande (2006), failure by organizations to implement employee value proportions is another factor that can be used to back the notion that when it comes to employee performance, the ends are more important than the means. Employee value proposition can be described as the offerings and associations that an organization provides to its workforce in return for their, performance, capabilities, skills and the experiences that the workforce bring to the organization (Minchington, 2006). When a philosophical point of view is used, employee value propositions considers the role of compensation as one of the major tools that can be used to enhance good organizational performance and also attract and retain employees in the organization (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005). Hill and Tande (2006) argue that the biggest challenge for many organizations today is the ability to maintain the employee value propositions. For instance recent surveys have revealed that 88% of employees leave organizations due to one central factor ‘’money’’. Despite the fact that the organizations can provide a suitable avenue for growth of skills and talents and good working environments, many employees choose to leave their jobs, not on the basis of how good their performance is, but rather on the basis of the rewards offered to them (Hill & Tande, 2006). It can therefore be argued in this context, that the ends are basically more important than the means. On the other hand, despite the fact that many studies have revealed that employees place a lot of value on the ends as opposed to the means, the ends are not basically the major essential aspect for employee performance. Retensa (2011) argues that although employees are in most cases perceived to focus on the ends as opposed to the means, there are certain scenarios whereby, the ends are basically not very essential determinants of the performance workforce. For instance in the context of not for profit organizations, employees in such organizations perform their task effectively in despite of the fact that the ends or the rewards do not exist or sometimes the rewards provided are not very lucrative. Retensa (2011) highlights that; employees in non-profit making organizations experience a variety of challenges as opposed to employees working in other sectors. In many scenarios the compensation packages are usually very low or in certain incidences no rewards are offered by the organization. However, despite of such challenges, the employees in such organizations work towards attaining the required targets. Retensa (2011) further highlights the employees in non-profit organizations are very much aware of the fact that they can actually get better rewards in other organizations however they keep on working for the organizations. Niven (2003) also reveals that in the context of non-profit organization employee performance is usually a central factor. In most cases the employees of the not for profit organization focus their performance on the mission statement of the organization as opposed to the profit statement. This is because the endpoint will be determined by the mission as opposed to the gains that the employees desire (Theodore, 2003). Despite the failure by organizations to implement employee value prepositions, it can be argued that a number of factors do influence employees to focus more on performance as opposed to the desired outcomes. Watson (2010) asserts that the recent global financial recession greatly transformed the mind sets of many employees. As witnessed during the financial crisis, many organizations adopted the option of cost cutting through downsizing in order to enhance survival (Vallespir, 2009). This resulted to negative implications for many employees. Many employees lost their jobs; furthermore those who retained their jobs had to adjust their pay requirements to lower remuneration packages. For instance O’clery (2010) reveals that due to the harsh implications of the financial crisis, a policy was implemented by the Irish Premier that workers were to have an average 7% reduction in their gross salary. The directive would affect teachers, road cleaners, bureaucrats, firefighters and everyone else on the government payroll. Watson (2010) further reveal that over 44% of organizations across the globe reduced the benefits they gave to their employees in order to ensure that they can effectively manage the recession. Watson (2010) argues that the attitude held by employees; that outcomes are more importance than the means has greatly changed especially after the financial crisis in view of the fact that they have radically shifted from reward-based focus to growth-based focus. Kolb (2010) further highlights that employees are currently looking for job security as opposed to the outcomes that they can gain from the job. As a result it can be argued that performance is a crucial aspect of enhancing job security (Kolb, 2010). In this case therefore, in despite of the fact that organizations have failed in terms of providing adequate value proportions for the employees, currently many employees are working towards improving their performance in order to secure their jobs as opposed to focusing on the ends (rewards). On the other hand, despite the fact the existence of theoretical frameworks such as the goal –path theory and the expectancy theory that support the notion that when it comes to employee performance the ends are more important than the means, it can still be argued that employee performance is not greatly focused on the goals or the expectations of the employees as propagated by the two theories. Armstrong (2010) highlights that the value that employees place on their performance is not just influenced by one major factor which is their expected outcomes. Armstrong propagates that just like Adams Smith proposed in 1776, several components make up the net total advantage of rewards besides the concept of pay and other benefits. This other factors include the possibility of successfully performing a task, job security and responsibility. Armstrong (2010) highlights that; all this factors are also important for the employee and if they are not available the employee will not get the net advantage of being part of the organization. For instance in a scenario whereby an employees is provided with a good deal in terms of rewards, however the workload is very high, the working conditions are very harsh and the targets to be met are extremely unattainable, then the employee is bound to have a feeling dissatisfaction in despite of the fact that their expected rewards are very high (Shields, 2007). Conclusion The paper has presented various arguments to support and oppose the notion. One of the arguments is that various studies have revealed the fact that employee performance is majorly influenced by the rewards as a result ,employees tend to focus more on the ends as opposed to the means . The paper also examined the concept of employee competencies and how employees tend to focus more on knowledge and skills as opposed to internal competencies such as attitudes and motives. Another highlighted point is on the basis of motivational theories; the expectancy theory, the Maslow theory and the path-goal theory. The expectancy theory argues that employees perform their tasks in a particular manner based on the expected outcomes that are linked to a particular behaviour while the path goal theory argues that motivational factors on subordinates have a significant influence on the outcome of their tasks. In addition the paper also stated that the failure of many organizations to implement the employee value prepositions. The paper has also evaluated the issue of productivity in the sense that employees tend to focus more on their productivity which further reflect on their behaviour. In conclusion from the above analysis, what is evident is that the question of whether when it comes to employee performance, the ends are more important than the means is quite controversial. In my opinion however when it comes to employee performance the ends are more important than the means. This is because I believe that employees place more value on the results which include their; productivity, their earnings and the working environment as opposed to their behaviour in the workplace. This paper however proposes that further research should be undertaken on the subject. References Armstrong, M, 2010, Armstrong's Handbook of Reward Management Practice: Improving, p40. Amstrong, M, 2006, Human Resource Management Practice, 10th Edition, Kogan Page Limited, London. Babakus, E, Yavas, U, Avic, T, 2003, The effect of management commitment to service quality on employee affective and performance outcomes, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), p271-286. Campbell, J. P, 1990, Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 687-732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.; Cooper, C, Burke, R, 2011, Human Resource Management in Small Business: Achieving Peak Performance, Edward Elgar Publishing, p94. Chiang, F and Birtch, T, 2011, Reward climate and its impact on service quality orientation and employee attitudes Original Research Article, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), p 3-9. DuBrin, A, 2008, Essentials of Management, 2008, Cengage Learning, p383-389 Güngör, P, 2011,The Relationship between Reward Management System and Employee Performance with the Mediating Role of Motivation: A Quantitative Study on Global Banks Original Research, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, p1510-1520. Gregg , P, Jewell, S, Tonks, I,2011, Executives Pay and Performance , Did Bankers’ Bonuses Cause the crisis, British Journal on Industrial Relatiosn,31(2),p1-42. Gollowitzer, P, 1996, The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behavior. New York: Guilford, p 16-47. Friedman, B, Cox, L, Larry, E, 2008, An Expectancy Theory Motivation Approach to Peer Assessment. Journal of Management Education, 32 (5), 580-612. Hill, B and Tande, C, 2006, Total Rewards, the employment value prepositions, WorlddatWork. Hecht, J,2008, Behavioural competency Framework Kolb, R, 2010, Lessons from the Financial Crisis: Causes, Consequences, and Our Economic Future, John Wiley & Sons. Langley, A, 2008, Employee Reward Structures, Spiramus Press Ltd. Lauby, S, 2005, Motivating Employees, Society for Training and Development Pietrzyk, W, 2007, The Relationship of Reward Structure and the Performance of New Military Product Teams: An Exploratory Analysis. Mae, L, 2011, Does Money Motivate Employees? President, Personnel Systems Associates Minchington, B, 2006, Your Employer Brand – attract, engage, and retain, Collective Learning Australia. Miner, B, 2007, Organizational behavior: From theory to practice, Sharpe publishers. Niven, R, 2003, Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Organizations. Toronto: John Wiley and Sons. Saenthong, N,2004, Competency , HR Center Company Limited .Bangkok. Spencer, L and Spencer, S, 1993, Competence at Work, Models for superior performance, New York; John and Wiley. Theodore, H, 2003, Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations, John Wiley & Sons. O’clery, C, 2010, In Ireland, "the game is up" Unrest brews as the government implements crisis measures to save the economy, Retrieved on March 22, 2012 from Retensa, 2011, Retention Programs to Retain Non-Profit Employees,p1 Stack, L, 2010, Empowered Employees are More Productive. Shields, J, 2007, Managing Employee Performance and Reward: Concepts, Practices, Strategies, Cambridge University Press. Sheahan, K, 2012, Determinants of Employee Performance Ulrich, D and Brockbank, W, 2005, The Hr Value Proposition, Harvard Business Press. Vallespir, B, 2009, Advances in Production Management Systems: New Challenges, New Approaches, Springer. Watson, T, 2010, Why an Employee Value Proposition Matters, Towers Watson. Winfrey,S,2007, 10 important signs your job might be worth staying at . Read More