|
|
| July 11, 2006 12:16 AM 1 |
Total Posts: 40
Join Date: November 30, -0001
Rank: Executive
Post Date: July 11, 2006
Posts: 40
Location: India
|
Performance Management Systems: Searching for the
A performance management system is a continual work-in-progress, and fewer organisations appear to be happy with their system than was the case nine years ago.
Associate Professor Alan Nankervis, from the School of Management at the Curtin University of Technology, Western Australia, presented and discussed the findings of a recent survey of performance management (PM) practices at last week’s AHRI National Convention in Melbourne.
The survey was a joint AHRI/Curtin project that analysed almost 1,000 replies. It found that 69% regarded their PM system as ‘effective’. This compares to 84% for a similar survey in 1995, but is nevertheless higher than results obtained by some other Australian surveys.
Performance Management vs Performance Appraisal
However, too many managers and employees equate ‘performance management’ with ‘performance appraisal’, regarding the latter as an annual form-filling ritual with a focus on processes rather than outputs and outcomes.
The emphasis on forms is usually for reasons of formality, an attempt to ensure legal compliance, and an attempt to make the system more objective. But this can be self-defeating if there is not enough individual input and customisation.
PM needs to be a strategic HR management tool, with linkages to individual, group and overall organisation outcomes, as well as most other HR processes. It should be horizontally (eg to recruitment and reward systems) as well as vertically aligned.
Types of Systems Used
The majority of survey respondents (600+) used a PM system that directly links organisational and individual objectives. About 200 used a hybrid system (comprising components of more than one type).
About 100 used team performance management, around 100 a trait-based system and less than 100 a management-by-objectives (MBO) approach. The use of MBO approaches appears to be waning.
On the other hand, 360-degree feedback systems are gaining popularity, as are upward appraisals (albeit still at a low level) and team appraisals. According to Nankervis, upward appraisals require an organisation culture that is very supportive in order to work effectively.
About 25% used a balanced scorecard in their organisation, but Nankervis observed that most balanced scorecards are not sufficiently customised to the individual organisation.
Problems Identified
In terms of what PM is used for, identifying training and development needs, measuring past performance and aligning individual and organisation objectives (all >75%) are the main purposes. About 50% link pay to performance in some way. Nankervis criticised the finding that only 27% use PM as a tool to help retain high-calibre staff.
Another area of concern is an apparent decrease in both the provision of appraisal training and the level of satisfaction with it, even though its design has become more sophisticated.
While Nankervis praised the more widespread emphasis on performance-based focus and stronger individual/organisation objectives linkages, he sees the need for a more strategic approach in areas such as links to career plans and links to remuneration reviews.
He commented that the Bell distribution curve for results is still widely used, although it is now an anachronism. Additional Information:
Further details of the PM survey are available from Professor Nankervis at: nankerva@cbs.curtin.edu.au. Regards Barkha Jain |
|
|
| July 11, 2006 02:532 |
madure
Total Posts: 278
Join Date: November 30, -0001
Rank: Coach
Post Date: July 11, 2006
Points: 1440
Location: India
|
Re: Performance Management Systems: Searching for the
Just to add a note on The Appraisal part of this issue: Why managers see appraisal as a low priority activity
Part 1: Managers' comfort zone
A manager's job consists of three parts - doing things, managing things and managing and leading people. It's worth remembering that very few managers actually go into their trade or profession with the aim of becoming a manager. They go into construction, for example, to build things, into education to teach things and into sales to sell things. In short, they want to do things.
Becoming a manager actually reduces the time they can spend doing what they know and love. On becoming a manager, they take on two additional parts to their job - managing things and managing and leading people. They have to manage things such as budgets, projects and workflow. This part of their job may not be very satisfying but at least they are inanimate. Not like the third part of their jobs - managing and leading people! That can be tricky and uncomfortable. Managers' jobs look like this:
It's no wonder, therefore, that managers gravitate towards 'doing things' (it's a major comfort zone) and away from 'managing and leading people'. This natural tendency is given added momentum by problems they encounter with appraisal.
Part 2: Specific problems with appraisal
Here are the five things managers tell me they hate about appraisal. You may not encounter all of them in your organisation but two or three, especially when managers themselves may not admit to them openly, will be enough to cause damage.
1. 'I've got enough to do without also having to fill in forms for Personnel.'
We all seem to be working longer and harder than we used to. Deadlines are getting tighter and targets tougher. So why should managers spend scarce and precious hours doing something from which they see little benefit or enjoyment?
Also, managers are rarely trained how to appraise staff. When they are trained, the training is often orientated towards completion of the documentation, emphasising its greater relevance to Personnel than to line managers.
2. 'The appraisal process is 'divorced' from the realities of my 'business' cycle.'
Appraisal rarely comes at the 'right' time of year for everyone. Real objectives rarely fit neatly into an appraisal year. It is either just too late or it coincides with an extremely busy period. This encourages some managers to sort out real objectives at the time appropriate to their business cycle and, at appraisal time, to 'bung something on the form to keep Personnel happy'.
3. 'Appraisal is inherently unfair.'
Appraisal favours people with easily quantifiable roles or project-orientated objectives. People in jobs that are not 'milestone-friendly' or for whom exceptional performance is difficult to quantify are disadvantaged. Appraisal can also discourage the teamwork necessary for effective organisations. (Why should I help you if that help will have a detrimental effect on my performance? Even if it will benefit the organisation, will it benefit my appraisal? Probably not.) And, of course, while all managers claim they appraise their own staff objectively, few claim that their own manager appraises their performance with equal detachment!
4. 'Appraisal is amazingly time-consuming.'
As organisations have downsized, spans of control have increased. I come across managers with over thirty appraisals to complete within a few weeks of each other while also trying to get on with their real work. Also, with the increasing use of matrix teams, many managers have to engage in the time-consuming activity of seeking information from other managers and customers if they are to appraise their staff accurately.
5. 'Giving staff feedback on their performance during an appraisal interview is uncomfortable.'
Most managers would have to check their diaries to recall what they were doing several weeks ago so recalling what one of their staff was doing several months ago requires a superhuman memory. Consequently, the 'interview' feels very artificial. Anyway, many managers feel that as they see their staff frequently, criticising and praising them as they go along, being forced to get together to talk about performance (whether or not all the member of staff wants to know is what pay rise they will receive) feels artificial.
Prof.Lakshman
|
|
|
|
|
