Developmental Performance Management Administrative Performance Management Essay
Performance management can be described as measuring, improving and appraising the activities of an organization, which including the activities of individual employees or teams of employees, to ensure the achievement of desired organizational goals (Anderson et al., 2004).
Performance management systems serve various functions. Those are formal devices for control, and for the formulation and communication strategy, and as such Performance management systems initially serve top level managers. But also desired performance management systems to support operational managers, to enable and motivate these managers to improve operations (Wouter 2009).
The three general purposes of performance management are
Strategic Performance Management
Developmental Performance Management
Administrative Performance Management (De Cieri et al., 2008).
Strategic performance management:
The enhanced competition in the private sector has stimuluses organizations into delivering great quality, efficiency and more flexibility of services. This condition imposes supplementary demands on the organization’s information processing capabilities. In trying to achieve these strategic objectives, organizations adopt more sophisticated and comprehensive management information system. These offer top level managers with comprehensive and wide range of information about various dimensions of the organization’s operations, facilitating decision-making and performance achievement. Organizations however, differ in the extent to which they achieve strategic performance successfully (Gill 2009).
A complex management information system provides managers with a wide-range of information to achieve various strategic goals. Gill (2009) distinguishes strategic goals into two, such as flexibility and cost reduction strategic goals. Organization to attempt to reduce cost and increase flexibility to be more competitive. A cost-based strategic objective focuses on internal efficiency and cost control, and thus tends to highlight current organizational structures rather than adopt new ones. A flexibility-based strategic goal focuses on coordination, diversification and decentralization within the organization. Organizations are not likely to achieve one strategic performance to the extent of excluding the other (Gill 2009).
As flexibility-related strategic goals need cross-functional interaction and decentralization, it allows relationship outputs and inputs of activities to be less clear. In opposite cost-related strategic performance focus on standardization and comparability of activities and processes (Gill 2009).
Developmental Performance Management:
To achieve an enabling Performance Management system, the organization followed a developmental approach to design and implement the Performance management system. This approach assumes that in an organization there is already considerable experience, and employees might be to utilize existing experience and engage staff in the design and execution of the Performance Management system (Wouter 2009).
The challenge was to develop a performance management system as an enabler of performance improvement, rather than simply as a control device. The organization adopted a development approach to performance management, which was based on the following principles:
2). Allowing experimentation,
3). Building on employees Professionalism,
4). Outside facilitators.
5). Transparency and employee ownership (Wouters 2009).
Administrative Performance Management:
The performance Management system for Administrative employee is design to provide a process for supervisors and workers to discuss and provide input on work accountabilities, expectations and Competencies. The process encourages ongoing training and input. At the end of the performance cycle, the supervisor and worker discuss feedback on the worker’s performance, as well as any opportunities for development (Administrative/Technical Staff Performance Management Program 2010).
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ), performance management approach is designed to help their people reach their full potential. In the year 2008, ANZ bank moved to simpler, globally consistent performance management framework.
Performance management is based on a balanced scorecard approach that assesses workers across the four categories of objectives of Customer, Process, people and Financial, as well as the standards of risk and behaviour, which are displayed throughout the year. The framework replaced numerous business and country-specific approaches and is applied Group-wide. However, some workers in certain locations and job levels are not covered by this framework due to their obligations under relevant industrial instruments. Performance management at Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited consists of three phases: Performance Planning, performance Coaching and Performance Assessment.
In the Performance planning phases, there is a strong emphasis on setting clear, measurable objectives that are aligned to broader business objectives and priorities. Employees and managers work together to establish performance standards that clearly articulate targets and stretch targets that are ambitious but achievable. An important focus of this step is ensuring workers are clear of the behaviour and risk standards expected of them and how failure to meet these standards can directly impact their performance-based remuneration.
Managers are encouraged to regularly meet with workers to coach and develop them throughout the year as part of the Performance Coaching phase; Managers are required to have a mid-year performance discussion with workers to track their progress halfway through the performance year. There is also a focus on implementing development plans to ensure people have the support and learning opportunities they need to succeed in their role.
In the Performance Assessment phase, workers receive a performance review at the end of performance year. Many areas of the business conduct reviews more frequently than this, however. The performance outcomes are directly connected with reward outcomes as part of their remuneration and rewards structure.
Vodafone, in designing the process the genuine challenge was to create a high-performing organization, not a performance management process. This is about only more than processes. The centre of the process is therefore a mandatory performance dialogue between a line supervisor and her/his people to create this high-performance mindset. The main focus throughout is on only a dialogue not the process, the system or the form. This dialogue is driven by the individual to relive supervisor’s workloads and to ensure that individuals are dedicated to the process and their own performance. This dedication is also dependent on them feeling the procedure is fair and clear and delivered in a motivational atmosphere. This means that the skills of supervisors in holding effective dialogues are critical; that in turn means providing training for all supervisors and individuals.
A good dialogue is not only just quick conversation in the corridor. Supervisors are expected to set aside a minimum time frame for the performance dialogue and make sure they are fully prepared. The performance dialogue should be two-way conversation, where the supervisors not only speak about the goals and provides coaching and feedback, but the individual also provides feedback on the supervisor’s performance. Supervisors always clear about what should be acceptable and what not to be and deal with supporting underperformers, underperformance with coaching and feedback. If performance does not improve on time, an appropriate action needs to be taken by the supervisor.
Vodafone outline the key principles, mainly the focus on the business. That means ensuring that individual goals are associated to the business and strong links have been made to the top-level strategic and financial planning processes.
In argue Individuals do not get any chances to challenge the performance dialogue process and favouritism will works while in the conversation process between the individuals and supervisor. The process needs to be flexible, to reflect changing goals during the year. Most companies, especially ones as dynamic and fast moving as Vodafone, do not stand still for a year for sake of a system. The process requirements to focus on continually improving the organization, not setting principles in stone. Vodafone’s customers are always demanding more, so the performance management process needs of its people.
Vodafone has needed to demonstrate that performance management will make difference. Vodafone holds a regular universal employee opinion survey. A few questions from the universal employee survey already measured the impact of the process in terms of people having clear goals linked to Vodafone’s strategy, coaching, regular feedback and personal development. These provided a superior benchmark and tracker of success. Vodafone developed a very simple online survey completed by individuals on their line supervisor using these questions and a few on the worth of the dialogue which might be used at an organizational level to measure the impact of the procedure and at an individual level to given developmental feedback for every manager. This also used locally to found managers who do it well or not. In added, Vodafone monitored the percentage of performance dialogue completed and feedback on the tool and the process. Every year a highly participative and interactive workshop held with representatives from every operation co-ordinator to reflect on experience.
Draw significant plans and conclusions to do it better the following years. Previous to these workshops every operation co-ordinator holds focus teams to ensure that the voice of the leaders, managers, customers and workers is listened to Continuous feedback, coaching and development and measurement. They also covered important behaviours including how to be attentive, honest feedback, how to give open, two-way, how to be open to learning and change, how to bring out the best in others, how to listen, and how to have mutual respect. This training has not only helped to with the achievement of performance management, but also helped to develop the skills of line supervisors.
Writing policies and plans do not create change, which happens through explaining and connecting people in why change is needed and how it will work.
Harrison’s is a multi-line traditional department store and deals mainly with children’s, women and men clothing. This is one of the largest privately owned retail stores in Common wealth of Australia. It was founded in Sydney as Harrison Brothers Corporation on 1898 by Aubrey and William Harrison.
The Harrison Corporation hires salespeople at minimum salary. But of course, the Harrison Corporation is offering room for salary increases for these sales people. The Harrison performs an annual evaluation of the performance of their salespersons in order to determine if they merit increases. The Harrison Corporation uses sales productivity as the main criterion for evaluation. Performance is evaluated on average sales per hour. The Harrison Corporation has had moderate success with this system, and not sure how it helps to Corporation to retain high-quality employees.
For Instance salesperson works in an eight percent in department. The hourly quota would be calculated by dividing the hourly level. This determines how much the salesperson would have to sell to breakeven. For any sales above that level, the salesperson receives a commission. At evaluation time, if the salesperson’s sales per hour are above the breakeven point, the new hourly wage is determined by multiplying the sales per hour by the percent level.
For Corporation’s sales support staff, as per Corporation sources said that they have supervisors who basically evaluate the worker’s performance through the quantity and quality of work last year, though, the company incorporated a form of workers development into the evaluation process. Supervisors are required to discuss the workers career opportunities and professional development with them. Company sources initiated that this form of career planning and hopefully as a way to keep good employees.
Employees’ perceptions of fairness very commonly relate to the rewards or other benefits that they receive. All sorts of decisions are made about workers at work. For instance, employees are required to receive favourable or unfavourable appraisals, people are promoted, they achieve particular targets, and they are awarded merit increases or bonuses (Williams 2002). And they have views about the fairness; this is what is referred to as outcome fairness or distributive justice. Williams (2002) discovered those two distributive factors that contributed to managers perceiving performance evaluations as fair are the performance evaluation was based on the performance achieved; salary recommendations are based on the evaluation provided. As expect, when worker see these type of decisions as being unfair, they tend to less fulfilled with them than when they see as fair. Perceptions of outcome fairness do have significant consequences for different aspects of performance, with perceived injustice possibly leading to withdrawal behaviours, lowered job performance, reduced work quality, and decreased co-operation with co-workers (Williams 2002).
The result of some sort of process such as other Performance management related decisions and rewards systems; in other words cannot perceived fairness of the decisions themselves from the means by which those decisions are arrived at, this is procedural justice. Williams (2002) recognized five procedural factors which contribute to the perceived fairness of the evaluation process;
The evaluator is familiar with the employee’s work;
There is two way communications during the evaluation interview;
Employee input is solicited the evaluation and is used;
Standards are applied consistently;
Employees have the ability to challenging the evaluation (Williams 2002).
Some of these factors support the principle that worker should have a voice in performance evaluation if they are to have a fair hearing.
Open communication plays an important role in ensuring that the employees understand how performance and reward are linked. Pay is necessary element of any reward system, but there is no mean, it is only one. Imagine difficulties; take a report of workers opinion. Be sure to afford pay-for-performance systems, not only just the financial cost but also be aware of the danger of demotivation. Fairness is vital in its own right. Perceived lack of fairness in performance management will have costs for the organization. Grab a design process which is fair in itself and which seeks to build fairness into the performance management process (Foong et al. 2008).
The effect of fairness of performance evaluation procedural fairness on job satisfaction is indirect through two distinct processes. The first process is outcome based through fairness of outcomes. The second procedure is non outcome-based through trust in the higher and organizational commitment. As Eggleton et al. (2008) the early studies on procedural fairness in a legal setting have found procedural fairness to be related to distributive fairness. Distributive fairness of outcomes might be defined as the judgements on how fair are the decisions that are made and found that distributive fairness, in turn, influences job satisfaction (Eggleton et al. 2008). These results propose that the effect of procedural fairness on worker job satisfaction might be indirect through distribute fairness. These likely indirect relationships of procedural fairness on job satisfaction through distributive fairness have not been methodically investigated (Eggleton et al. 2008).
The indirect effects of procedural fairness on work satisfaction through non-outcome-based or emotional processes are also yet to be investigated. According to Eggleton et al., (2008) previous studies shows that procedural fairness has significant emotional effects and several studies shows that the important relationship between procedural fairness and employee trust in supervisor. This link also found between organizational commitment and procedural fairness. These effects trust and organizational commitment might be related to worker job satisfaction; it is likely that the relationship between procedural fairness and worker job satisfaction is indirect through trust and organizational commitment. The above argument suggests that procedural fairness might be related to some outcome and non-outcome variable. Eggleton et al. (2008) attempts to add to the article by development of a model that integrate the two key processes by which fairness of worker evaluation procedures affects worker behaviours. The developmental of such a model is beneficial. Initially, it might minimise the confusion arising from the interpretation of a few bivarate relationships, each, studied in isolation. Instead, an integrated model might help us to understand where and how the various bivariate relationships found in previous studies fit and are linked together. Second one, it might be clarify whether the total effects between procedural fairness on job satisfaction are direct or indirect (Eggleton et al. 2008).Order Now