Future developments of performance management

 

Performance Management structures are adapting quickly to the converting business models and the requirements of evolving employee expectations. Every organization has an overall performance control gadget in place. However, managers and staff don’t constantly discover it very helpful. It evokes mixed feelings amongst employees. Many times the effects are referred to as into query because of inadequate time, effort, and funding spent on achieving the assessment outcome.

As a result, managers and employees alike think that performance management systems are both stressful and subjective. The loss of motivation and perception surrounding this manner may effect a review’s ability to enhance worker overall performance.  In fact, present overall performance control structures may emerge as having a terrible effect on personnel, as they are able to get stuck up stressful approximately repayment and the info of the rating system and feedback.

Many organizations spend a lot on adopting performance management system but not all succeed. Many methods for PM may be practiced, but the most efficient is to adopt the most suitable to the organization.  Hence  the  type  of  the  business  and  the  structure  of  the organization may play essential role in choosing the right method that matches the environment of the organization. Since 1992, business performance management has been strongly influenced by the rise of the balanced scorecard framework. It is common for managers to managers to apply the balanced scorecard framework to make clear the dreams of an organization, to pick out the way to tune them and to shape the mechanisms via way of means of which interventions can be triggered. In reality balanced scorecard is frequently used as the idea for enterprise overall performance control interest with organizations.

Performance management according to Armstrong (2009) is a systematic process for improving organizational performance by developing the performance of individuals and teams and The merit system or rating system originated in the 1940's and 1950's and required managers to rate employees on both work and personality factors. A rating scale of 1 to 5 was the normal ranging from 1 that stands for poor and to 5 that means outstanding.  Work factors were typically defined as knowledge of job, output, accuracy etc.

Performance Management Trends

Big companies are making changes. Soon, smaller companies will follow suit. Patterns are beginning to emerge:

What is a modern performance management system?

Changing in reality is vital for any company especially on this dynamic world, with a view to maintain progress. Hence the effectiveness of any new system in the first degree depends on the acceptance of the stakeholders. That by turn relies heavily on the way of creating culture for it. That highlights the importance of training and learning. Modern management processes are moving towards customization, flexibility, and agility. Following are some of the key changes that will be considered essential for any progressive performance management system:

 

• Set flexible goals
• Different criteria for different decisions
• Team performance vs. Individual performance
• Clearly defined criteria for compensation
• Integrate technology in the performance appraisal process
• Giving feedback
• Get data that matters
• Performance tools can automate activities, freeing up manual time
• Un-link performance evaluation and compensation
• Prioritize ongoing communication
• Help employees become successful instead of pulling them down

 

The future belongs to those who adapt. Performance management is continually evolving and responding to the fundamental changes in organization structures, business models, and the needs of the employees. Despite the potential of PM systems to positively support the organization and enhance both employee and organizational performance, the reality faced by practitioners may be very different (Aguinis, Joo, & Gottfredson, 2011; Bragger, Kutcher, Menier, Sessa, & Sumner, 2014; Davis, 2011; Pfeffer, 2009) In fact, PM systems, which include sometimes very blunt performance appraisal (PA) practices, have been called the “Achilles’ heel” of organizational processes (Pulakos, 2004; Pulakos, Mueller-Hanson, O’Leary, & Meyrowitz, 2012).

The nature of every organization is different and has its own performance objectives. It’s important that all employees know what the organization stands for, and what its purpose is. Only then can employees align their efforts with the purpose of the organization. And for that to happen, organizations must do away with old models of performance management systems and make way for updated, more effective methods.

References

Aguinis, H., Joo, H., Gottfredson, R. K. (2011). Why we hate performance management—And why we should love it. Business Horizons, 54, 503-507. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.06.001

Armstrong, M. (2009). A handbook of personnel management practice. 11th Ed. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Bragger, J., Kutcher, E., Menier, A., Sessa, V., Sumner, K. (2014). Giving nonselective downsizing a performance review. Human Resource Development Review, 13, 58-78. doi:10.1177/1534484313492331

Davis, P. J. (2011). Seven biggest problems with performance appraisals: And seven development approaches to rectify them. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 26, 11-14. doi:10.1108/14777281211189119

Pfeffer, J. (2009 June 30). The trouble with performance reviews. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-06-30/the-trouble-with-performance-reviewsbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

Pulakos, E. D. (2004). Performance management effective practice guideline. Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.

Pulakos, E. D., Mueller-Hanson, R. A., O’Leary, R. S., Meyrowitz, M. M. (2012). Building a high-performance culture: A fresh look at performance management (Effective Practices Guidelines). Alexandria, VA: SHRM Foundation.