Conclusion - Threats of Poorly Implemented PfM

Performance Management (PfM) is a complicated process which has many steps involving various stakeholders in all level of the organizations. With this said, there are tendencies of complications and threats could occur in an organization when implemented poorly. So following are some of the threats found from Aguinis, (2009); (Brown & Benson, 2005); (Gabris & Ihrke, (2001) by poor PfM implementation.

1. High Turnover – If PfM is seen as an unjust process, then this could lead to the employee withdrawing physically (quitting or absenteeism) or psychologically (minimizing their effort till another job opening) from the given task.

2. Using misleading information – If the PfM implemented doesn’t have a standard system in place then there can be many occasions where false information regarding employee performance can be fabricated.

3. Lowered self-esteem- If the feedback in a PfM process provided prove to be inappropriate or inaccurate then they can damage the employee confidence. And often leads to employee resentment.

4. Resource wastage- poorly implemented PfM will have poor the facilities, money, time and effort management. This could also lead to the management shying away from PfM process due to the wastage.

5. Jeopardize employee relationships – the interrelationship damaged permanently due to the deficient systems.

6. Lack of Motivation to perform – When the appraisals are not translated into meaning full tangibles (monetary rewards) or tangibles (recognition) for the employee the motivation factor decreases.

7. Jon burnouts and dissatisfaction – when the evaluation part in the PfM is seen unjust, this could lead to high job burnouts and dissatisfaction.

8. Increased chances of legal action – Unfair performance appraisals can turn into high cost lawsuits for the organizations.

9. Rise of biased behaviour – personal favours, biases can replace the standard when PfM process are poorly implemented.

10. Confused rating systems – due to poor communication the employees may not know how their efforts are transformed into rewards.

Above are the main threats organization can incur by a poor PfM, and were briefly discussed in a previous post.

PfM is an integrated system. And the stakeholders and components in all levels should go hand-hand in a continuous interaction to achieve an effective PfM. Understanding the essence of PfM from inception to implantation can greatly help an HR professional to channel his/her effort to harness utilize the human capitol in an organization. Thus ensuring the maximum of Human Resources usage, after all the HR is the science of harnessing the human capital in an organization.



References

Aguinis, H., (2009). Performance management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Brown, M., & Benson, J. (2005). Managing to overload? Work overload and performance appraisal processes. Group & Organization Management, 30(1), pp 99–124.

Gabris, G. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2001). Does performance appraisal contribute to heightened levels of employee burnout? The results of one study. Public Personnel Management, 30(1), pp 157–172.

Teams and Performance Management

The Performance management (PfM) is a scale, which helps to measure, monitor and maximize the performance of the job (Armstrong, 2000; Dransfield, 2000). This applies for both individuals and teams.

As the teams rely on individual and collective performance this is important to note in order to develop an effective team PfM.

Main characteristics of team PfM

According to Letts, Ryan & Grossman (1998), there are 4 main factors to be considered in an effective team PfM,

· Adoptive capacity – This refers to the teams’ ability to deal with the external stakeholders outside the teams (here the external stakeholders include fellow teams, employees, management from the same organization and clients out of the organization). In this context the team aligns its goals according to the needs & influences of the stakeholders.

· Leadership capacity – This refers to the team members’ ability to define goals and allocate resources according to the desired outcome.

· Management capacity – This is the ability of the teams on its use of resources. Without careful development & coordination the money, facilities, time and effort will be wasted.

· Technical capacity- This depend on the technical aspects of the task/service/product. The teams should be capable and competent enough to undertake the task.

With these four factors, a frame work to assess teams PfM can be developed and utilised to have an effective Team PfM. As team working are becoming increasingly common in organization this becomes crucial to manage them.




References

Armstrong, M. (2000). Performance management: Key strategies and practical guidelines. (2nd Ed), Denver, NH: Kogan Page Business Books.

Dransfield, R. (2000). Human resource management. (1st Ed), Oxford: Heinemann.

Letts, C.W., Ryan, W.P. & Grossman, A. (1998). High performance nonprofit organizations: Managing upstream for greater impact .San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Special Issues in Performance Management

An organization may encounter things which can hampers it’s performance management. Following are some special issues identified by literature reviews,

• Counterproductive Work behaviour (CWB)
• Managing Team Performance
• Technology
• Cross cultural Issue
• Future trends

Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CBW)

According to Spector et al in 2006, CBW is defined as “volitional acts that harm or intend to harm organizations and their stakeholders (for example, clients, co - workers, customers, and supervisors)”. And Atwater & Elkins in 2009 further says that CWB includes abuse behaviour towards others (including incivility, workplace violence and sexual harassment), poor performance, sabotage, theft, absenteeism and lateness as well.

Before dealing with CWB it is essential to find the root cause of the problem. Root cause may range from substance abuse, family problem, financial burden, employee traits, toxic leadership ship, job dissatisfaction to organizational climate.

To mitigate CWB, managers need to handle these performance problem such a way that they will not make the issue more complex or complicated (Atwater & Elkins, 2009). This includes adjusting the work arrangements that impacts the WBS behaviour.

Managing Team Performance

When studying an efficient teams Kozlowski and Ilgen found in 2006, that they have satisfied members, and are viable. They further states that their effectiveness is shaped by cognitive process, interpersonal, motivational & affective process and behavioural process.

The team cognitive process includes team climate, teams shared knowledge, transactive memory and team learning. While interpersonal, motivational process are influenced by team bonding, shared goals and potency. The final behavioural process includes coordination of efforts, member competency and team regulations and adoptability (Kozlowski & Ilgen. 2006).

In order to be an effective PfM, these aspects need to be considered when forming a team and managing them.

Technology in PfM

Technology can influence and used to multiply the effectiveness of the PfM. According to Krauss & Snyder, 2009, with technology it can be used, To educate the employee about their goals
Employees can update their goals overtime.
Employees can update about the current project and stakeholders and once the project is completed, the system can gather feedbacks from stakeholders
Employee & Manager can create, store & revise performance plan in a common electronic space
To maintain a database to track high performance employees, opportunities
Help managers’ complete formal appraisals and reviewing

Having said the above, there are potential challenges such as information overloading, time consuming for feed data, frustration associated with inadequate user interface & requirements. In addition to the above, the employees need to be technologically literate in order to master the technology.

Performance Management in Cross Culture

This applies to when an organization works in a multicultural environment. Since cultural difference are present around the globe, when a multinational organization employees form different culture and ask them to work together it causes leads to conflicts. This is phenomenon is a major issue threating the PfM in multinational organizations (Day & Greguras, 2009).

Cross-culture PfM implementation are challenges to the managers because of the contrast difference in interpreting competencies used to evaluate performance. In addition to this, discussing negative feedback to employees directly as a feedback is also a main drawback (Day & Greguras, 2009).

Performance Management in the Future

According to Tippins and Coverdale (2009), Successful PfM in organizations will depends on number of components such as characteristics of the job, contextual demands of the organization and attributes of employees.

They further conceptualize that all the trends expected to occur are either employee attributed or workplace attributed. Following table depicts the trends,

Changes in workplace

• Working as groups
• Globally dispersed groups
• Flexible definition of jobs
• Outsourcing
• Remote working arrangements
• Flexible work schedule
• Job sharing
• Flat organizational structure
• Matrix Management
• Multimedia communication models
• Global Business
• Technology
• Changes

Changes in worker characteristics

• Number of qualified workers
• Employee expectations of job
• Loyalty of employers & employees
• Change in supervisory relationship

These trends pose serious challenges to the management when implementing the PfM. Hence needed to be addressed to sustain the organization in long term.



References

Atwater , L. & Elkins ,T. (2009). Diagnosing, understanding, and dealing with counterproductive work behavior . In J. W. Smither & M.London (Eds.), Performance management: Putting research into practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp 359- 410.

David, V. D. & Gary J. G. (2009). Performance Management in Multi-National Companies. In J.W. Smither & M. London (Eds), Performance management: Putting research into practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp 271-296.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006).Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(1), pp 77–124.

Krauss, A. D., & Snyder, L.A. (2009). What role does technology plays in performance management?. In J.W. Smither & M. London (Eds), Performance management: Putting research into practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp 445- 490.

Smither, J.W. & London, M. (2009). Performance Management: Putting Research into Practice. 1st Ed. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons. pp 585-625.

Spector, P. E., Fox , S. , Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A. & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(1), pp 446–460.

Tippins , N. T , & Coverdale, S. H. (2009).Performance management of the future. In J.W. Smither & M. London (Eds), Performance management: Putting research into practice San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp 555-583.