Performance Management Techniques - Mercurys Tool - Coursework Example

TALENT AND REWARD MANAGEMENT By Course: Professor: University: Location: Date: Talent and Reward Management Performance Management Techniques The type of performance management technique that is present in the instrument is the balanced score card. According to Shields et al (2016), the balanced score card is one of the most comprehensive performance management tools. The results from the technique are usually based on a variety of measures that provide an alignment between the employee and organizational goals. In Mercury’s tool, there is an aspect of this balance as the amount of work done by the employee is measured along with how they grasp the instructions given to them. These are aspects that contribute to the achievement of the overall organizational goals. Indeed, the balanced score card mixes both financial and non-financial measures when assessing the performance of the employee. This is an aspect that is present in Mercury’s tool, but it is dominated by non-financial measures. Moreover, the tool enables the measurement of planned organizational goals. For example, in the case of Mercury’s tool, the employee is assessed based on how they are ready to contribute to the organizational goals. At the same time, the balanced score card facilitates customer satisfaction and employee goal clarity. In Mercury’s technique, the employees are well aware of their goals, and this is assessed by their supervisor. The individual’s ability to work towards attaining the organizational goals is measured by the supervisor during the assessment. The other aspect of the balanced score card that is present in the tool is flexibility. Mercury’s tool can be adjusted to measure the performance of employees from different departments at the organization. Additionally, the other performance management technique that is present in the tool is the key performance indicators. The key performance indicators can be aspects such as plant productivity, unit cost, product quality, plant safety, and employee turnover. In the tool used by Mercury, each question has a key performance indicator that measure the performance of the employee. The performance indicator include aspect such as number of working hours, correctness of duties, grasping of instructions, respect and courtesy, and working under minimum supervision. The supervisor is expected to gauge the performance of the employee against each of the key performance indicator. For example, if the employee is found not to have any respect and courtesy coupled with aspect such as not attending to duties, they are likely to be dismissed from Mercury. The indicators also help Don is determining which employees are eligible for the annual bonus. In essence, these key performance indicators helps the supervisor assess the commitment of the employee towards achieving organizational goals. Main Strengths of the Instrument One of the main strengths of the instrument used by Mercury is that it can be used for all non-managerial employees at the organizations. These employees include call center staff, parcel dispatch persons, drivers and administration staff. This strengths enables the company to save on the costs of producing other instruments for each job. The other strength of the tool is that it is straightforward, and the supervisors can complete it within few minutes. In essence, the supervisors do not spend too much time trying to assess and individual employee as the performance indicators are within the questions; the supervisor doe s not have to think about other measures that are not provided for in the tool. In essence, these strengths can be the main reasons why Don prefers to use the tool. Additionally, the tool also has the strength of informing the decision-making process of the top management. For example, Don cannot single-handedly determine which employee will be eligible for the bonus, but this can be facilitated by the tool. The technique enables Don to rank each employee according to their performance, and determine the ones that will be dismissed, those that will be retained, and the ones that will receive a bonus. Essentially, this encourages the employees to enhance their performance so that they can receive the bonus and be retained by Mercury. Furthermore, the tool also enables the translation of the company’s goals into key performance indicators. This enable the employees to aware of what they are supposed to do so that they can help in achievement of the organizational goals. Furthermore, the other strength of the technique is also based on historical events; the employee’s performance is measured against their activities the period of measurement. This will not only give the organization a preview of what happened in the past but also inform the decision-making process on how the performance can be improved in future. The other strength of the tool is that is it uses a variety of measure to determine the performance of the employee. Each of the questions in the tool in one way or the other is representative of a given measure. At the end of the day, all these measures are combined to determine the performance of the employee. If only one measure is used, then this will be biased in terms of measuring the performance of the employees.in general, these strengths are the basis for assessing the employees’ performance at Mercury by using the technique. Validity, Reliability and Felt-Fairness There are several features of the instrument that can compromise the validity, reliability and felt-fairness of the performance management process. Firstly, there is the element of measuring the amount of work done by the employees. This feature compromises the reliability of the measure as it negates external issues that may have affected the amount of work done by the employee on the particular period. These factors can be aspects such as the delay of materials or sickness of the employee. The other feature that compromises the reliability of the process is the accuracy of the correctness of the duties performance. This is assessed by the supervisor and may result to unfairness as the accuracy of the duties depend on the supervisor and not their opinion. Additionally, the other feature that could compromise the reliability of the process is the part of respect and courtesy. These are aspects that are difficult to measure, but Mercury wants the supervisor to measure the performance of the employee based on the respect they show to others in the organization. The supervisor may find that the employee is not respectful, and this may vary if other employees’ are asked on their opinion. The employees will therefore feel that they are being unreasonably targeted by the supervisor. The other feature that may compromise the reliability of the instrument is that it measures the mental flexibility of the employees. Like all other measures in the tool, the supervisor is expected to assess the flexibility of the employee and this may result in biasness in the entire process. At the same time, the other feature of the tool that may compromise the validity of the tool is that it does not require the participation of the employee in the process. The supervisor sits down and assesses the performance of the employees without involving them. According to Kramar and Syed (2012), the process of process management in any organization should involve employees as they are the ones whose performance is being measured. Mercury negates the employees from the entire process, and this may result to unfairness when the employee is told that they have been dismissed based on the assessment of their supervisor. In essence, these features have to be addressed so that the tool can be valid, reliable and fair. Improving the Instrument Mercury’s performance management tool can be improved in several ways based on the elements of compromise that have been identified. Firstly, the elements of mental flexibility and respect should be eliminated from the tool and replaced with other reliable measures that are directly related to the duties of the employee. Furthermore, the tool should not be used as a way of dismissing the employees, but as way of determining how their performance can be improved. According to Armstrong (2009) one of the aims of performance management is to identify the employees that need further training. Don is using the tool to dismiss the employees, and give others a bonus. In Don’s view, training is a waste of time and company resources. However, this is one aspect of the tool that should change so that it can be more reliable. Additionally, the tool can also be improved by enhancing the participation of the employees in the entire process. The supervisor should involve the employee during the assessment process. Performance management should be a collaborative process whereby the employee and supervisor identify the strengths and weaknesses of the employee. This way they can agree on how the performance may be improved in future so that the employee can succeed. The benefits that Mercury will realize from improving the tool include the retention of employees. The employees will be committed towards achieving organizational goals as they are assured of job security unlike in the current process where the employees can be dismissed at the end of performance management. It is therefore ideal that the process is improved so that the current issues of performance revolving around employee concerns can be addressed. Bibliography Armstrong, M., 2009. Armstrong's handbook of performance management: an evidence-based guide to delivering high performance. Kogan Page Publishers. Shields J., et al., 2016. Managing employee performance and reward: concepts, practices, strategies. Kramar, R. and Syed, J., 2012. Human resource management in a global context: a critical approach. Palgrave Macmillan. Read More