The growth of the economy spells good news for businesses, especially those that are looking to expand on the international platform. On that note, as companies seek to enhance their performance with the push for going global, they must consistently evaluate their overall activities and processes related to goods, services, marketing, etc. (Noruzy et.al 2013, p.1073). Evaluating performance is a vital continuous improvement model for organizations to gain a competitive edge as well as play a major role in the global market where competition is stiff and develops every day (Van Dooren, Bouckaert, and Halligan 2015, p. 6). Regardless of the precarious nature of employee performance, presently, the performance evaluation approaches has faced intense scrutiny to the point that employers are now inquiring the need for performance evaluation systems. The details of the paper will seek to shed light on the performance management reinvention process and the useful components of the organizational structure in which new performance management system is implemented. This is while basing special reference to the article ‘Reinventing performance management’ by Buckingham and Goodall.
The key questions to consider in this paper include;
- What is the primary purpose of the reinvented performance management system?
- How do team leaders measure employees’ value in their team?
- How do team leaders identify best performers and those that need improvement?
- Are the employees in the organization ready for a promotion?
The initial step will be to examine the significance of the performance management process to an organization. The paper shall then proceed to explore the effective ways to drive, observe, and recognize performance
Keywords: performance management, employee performance, organization structure, performance evaluation system
Performance management is perceived as the process in which the performance of an organization can be enhanced by developing the performance of members within a team structure (Haines III and St-Onge 2012, p. 1158). Most organizations spend a substantial amount of their time and resources in performance management practices. It is notable that majority of the employees are spending long hours in evaluating ratings, attending meetings, completing forms, etc. It is, therefore, important for employees to know the value the organization is deriving from investing in performance management and being able to understand whether time and resources allocated is spent effectively (Bao et.al 2013, p.444). Performance management activities include conducting the performance appraisal and employee development which are the major components of the human resources management. In the present world, significant evolution has taken place in the work settings, in many organizations this has, in turn, contributed to the rise of talented employees who play a critical role in the outstanding amount of output that organizations churn out to the market (Gallardo-Gallardo, Dries and Gonz?lez-Cruz 2013, p.291). However, it has been reported that the current performance management system fails to produce satisfactory performance and improve employee engagement. A recent survey by Deloitte proved this fact as close to 60% of the executives stated that the existing performance management techniques are out of step with the organization's goals (Buckingham and Goodall 2015, p. 4). For this reason, Deloitte is reinventing its performance management systems to incorporate a much simple design that will streamline employees’ performance. With the business world undergoing rapid evolution, the management at Deloitte began to question as to whether the performance management system that has been relied upon for several years is sufficient to drive the company’s performance. Changes warrants leaders and managers to be performance oriented; otherwise, they become the subject of criticisms for failing to do so (Moynihan and Lavertu 2012, p.592). The new approach developed will be focused to evaluate promptness, one size fits one, agility, and continuous learning and development to be supported by new methods of amassing consistent performance data.
To redesign the future performance management process, organizations need to identify the key purpose of the system at the company. The newly designed performance management system should be able to recognize performance. The process should be able to influence activities that encourage fair promotion and compensation as well as poor performer managerial judgments (Bianchi 2012, p.144). The system should also enable the team leaders to observe performance (Goetsch and Davis 2014, p.8). This helps to derive a broad stream of data that gives the managers an outlook into the performance of the organization. Another purpose of the new system is to enable create a performance. The objective of the model to manage performance is to fuel more of the performance. Every business has a bottom line that is driven by the performance of the workforces. As such, there is need to establish effective ways to drive performance in real time on the team members.
Additionally, the performance management model should be centered on the right features and that time is not unexploited puzzling through the bygone. Buckingham and Goodall 2015, p. 5) recommended shifting the focus and asking team leaders about their future actions to a particular team member and not focusing their questions about their skills. They further developed four questions that should be directed at the team leaders which included: 1. Given what I know of this person's performance, and if it were my money, I would award this person the highest possible compensation, 2. Given what I know of this person's performance, I would want him/her on my team, 3. This person is at risk for low performance, 4. This person is ready for promotion today (Buckingham and Goodall 2015, p. 5-6).
One effective way of creating performance is to establish strong internal communication systems (Okoro and Washington 2012, p.55). Designing check-ins are one effective way to facilitate communication about tasks and to make their logistics a habit (Mueller-Hanson and Pulakos 2015, p.3). The nature and content of check-ins have morphed through time as it varies from one person to another, project to project as well as period to period. To successfully introduce this new technique, giving members prompts to initiate conversations and sending emails with a yes or no voting button to determine whether team members sparked a check-in conversation with their team leader. Team leaders and members are required to meet a one to one relationship in order to explore immediate feedback and outcomes for the period. It seeks to align priorities for what is impending, and it is affected with a powerful lens (Mueller-Hanson and Pulakos 2015, p.3). The team leaders have the opportunity to discuss how each team member will deliver on the work given their own unique skills and capabilities and how each individual will develop opportunities for them to accomplish (ROBBINS & JUDGE 2015, p.322).
Buckingham and Goodall (2015, p.2) stated that evaluating a person's skills tends to produce unreliable data. Today, most organizations are moving away from the science of ratings; however, this does not imply that they should discontinue collecting performance data, rather, they should capture performance data of a different kind. The performance management process requires a new method of assessing performance. The performance snapshot is designed to aid this. Performance snapshot is an efficient tool for team leaders to capture data about each team member's performance at specific times. Performance snapshots are said to be time-oriented, thereby allowing team leaders to closely capture his or her evaluations of performance when it occurs (Halawani et.al 2012, p. 243). When a period ends, numerous snapshots are completed for each individual so that the projects captured is captured. The snapshots are also considered to be simple. The team leaders are provided with a folk’s mobile accessibility to make them simple for their workforce to allow an ongoing flow of data throughout the period. Performance snapshots are also said to be research based. This requires team leaders to rate their intended future actions instead of asking them to rate the skills of their team members. While implementing the new performance management model, team leaders will be able to make decisions based on what they know about each of their workforces rather than what they think of an individual.
After the team leaders have collected their set of data, it is then aggregated and reviewed to provide the leaders with a broad point of view of performance in an organization. The management sits down with the team leaders to assess the scatter chart that plots snapshot data. The data is integrated to allow team leaders to generate their own conclusions in order to fuel significant talent decisions (Boachie-Mensah and Seidu 2012, p.74).
The redesigned performance management process has been founded on three objectives incorporating numerous constituents. The components function self-sufficiently but also support each other to build an environment of performance.
As noted in the above literature, the role that performance management plays and the potential that it has in organizations is significant, in the strictest sense. In the bid to ensure the effectiveness of performance management, the process must be embedded on a firm and stable leadership and an organizational structure that works to improve its overall processes. It is evident that when conducting employee appraisals and evaluations, managers are always looking to retain hardworking and efficient employees who have aligned their tasks in such a manner that they are able to meet the organization's goals. However, changes ought to take place in how performance management is done. However, how well an organization manages its employee's performance, the concepts designed by Buckingham and Goodall are worth noting. The change should enable shift the focus beyond ‘what is the performance management process?’ To concentrate on how to align the leaders, team members, coaches, etc. to be able to properly undertakes projects. Optimization should create a focus on establishing a new generation coupled with new skills, mindsets, and insights to drive performance and engagement of individual and the team.
List of References
Bao, G., Wang, X., Larsen, G.L. and Morgan, D.F., 2013. Beyond new public governance: a value-based global framework for performance management, governance, and leadership. Administration & Society, 45(4), pp.443-467.
Bianchi, C., 2012. Enhancing performance management and sustainable organizational growth through system-dynamics modelling. In Systemic management for intelligent organizations (pp. 143-161). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Boachie-Mensah, F.O. and Seidu, P.A., 2012. Employees’ perception of performance appraisal system: A case study. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(2), pp.73-88.
Buckingham, M. and Goodall, A., 2015. Reinventing performance management. Harvard Business Review, 93(4), pp.40-50.
Gallardo-Gallardo, E., Dries, N. and Gonz?lez-Cruz, T.F., 2013. What is the meaning of ‘talent’in the world of work?. Human Resource Management Review, 23(4), pp.290-300.
Goetsch, D.L. and Davis, S.B., 2014. Quality management for organizational excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: pearson.
Haines III, V.Y. and St-Onge, S., 2012. Performance management effectiveness: practices or context?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(6), pp.1158-1175.
Halawani, S.M., AlBidewi, I., Ahmad, A.R. and Al-Romema, N.A., 2012. Retrieval optimization technique for tuple timestamp historical relation temporal data model. Journal of Computer Science, 8(2), p.243.
Moynihan, D.P. and Lavertu, S., 2012. Does involvement in performance management routines encourage performance information use? Evaluating GPRA and PART. Public Administration Review, 72(4), pp.592-602.
Mueller-Hanson, R.A. and Pulakos, E.D., 2015. Putting the “performance” back in performance management. Society for Human Resource Management and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V.M., Azhdari, B., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S. and Rezazadeh, A., 2013. Relations between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: an empirical investigation of manufacturing firms. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, pp.1-13.
Okoro, E.A. and Washington, M.C., 2012. Workforce diversity and organizational communication: Analysis of human capital performance and productivity. Journal of Diversity Management (Online), 7(1), p.57.
ROBBINS, S. P., & JUDGE, T. A. (2015). Organizational behavior. Boston, Pearson.
Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G. and Halligan, J., 2015. Performance management in the public sector. Routledge.