Organisational Structure and Performance Management in the Manufacturing Sector - Research Proposal Example

The paper "Organisational Structure and Performance Management in the Manufacturing Sector" is a great example of a management research proposal. Employee performance management (PM) is a concept that has existed for centuries in various forms. Although there is no compelling evidence in the literature that traces the specific origin of PM, it is believed that as early as the third century AD, the Chinese were already using some form of the performance management system to appraise and monitor the performance of their workers (Armstrong, 2009). This concept can further be traced to the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. In the course of this period, factory managers began to become increasingly aware of the importance of managing employee performance in order to increase their output (Zakaria & Yusoff 2011). With time, this recognition slowly began to creep in the field of academia as evident in the works of Fredrick Taylor (1911) who accentuated on the need for managers to monitor and appraise the performance of their employees. Although Taylor (1911) did not make specific reference to PM, the underlying principles in his work resonate with the concept (Armstrong, 2009). Allegedly, the earliest reference in literature to the concept PM was made by Warren (1972). In his research in a manufacturing company, Warren (1972) established that some of the key features of PM include; expectations, skill, reinforcement, resources and feedback.

Since then many other scholars have directed their attention towards developing models in an attempt to provide insight on what performance management entails. In practice, PM has also been embraced and integrated into organisational processes worldwide. In recent years, there has been increasing interest in PM (Biron, Elaine & Paauwe, 2011). This increasing interest in PM has mainly been driven by challenging economic conditions, which have stressed and compelled organisations to find measures of improving their performance. Instead of waiting for external improvements such as technological advances or market growth, a considerable number of organisations are focusing on the internal environment for productivity and performance. As a result, the concept of PM is receiving increasing attention as a route or means of improving organisational performance (Buchner, 2007).

While interest in PM has increased considerably, a critical look at the evidence in literature it is evident that the concept is perceived and defined differently. In most cases, PM is portrayed as a broad and multi-dimensional concept (Broadbent & Laughlin 2009; Kagaari, Munene & Ntayi 2010; Sahoo & Mishra 2012). For instance, Broadbent & Laughlin (2009) note that PM encompasses planning, setting expectations, regular monitoring of performance and rewarding suitable performance. On the other hand, Kagaari, Munene & Ntayi (2010) observe that PM is a means of achieving better results from the individuals and teams within the organisation by understanding and managing performance within a set framework of standards, goals and requirements. According to Sahoo & Mishra (2012), PM is a process that involves creating a work environment where employees can maximize their potential. It is a holistic work environment that foremost involves clearly defining and communicating job requirements to employees. Sahoo & Mishra (2012) further note that PM is characterised by five key features. These features include; clear job description, education and training, feedback, performance development discussions, recognition and compensation system.