The Performance Used in Cineworld Group Plc UK - Case Study Example

Performance Evaluation at Cineworld Group Plc -UK Student’s Name Course Tutor’s Name Date: Introduction It is common knowledge among human resource managers that evaluating or measuring employee performance is an essential undertaking in any organisation. Specifically, measuring or evaluating employee performance gives such HR managers the incentives needed to identify whether the level of human capital is sufficient to meet strategic objectives that the organisation may have for the future. Suffice to say, employee performance, or the lack of it, affects the financial and non-financial outcomes of any firm. Any organisation worth its salt therefore conducts regular performance evaluation or measurement on its employee. The performance evaluation or measurement is done for purposes which include identifying employees whose contribution is noteworthy, and identifying human resource gaps that need to be filled either through training the existing workforce, or training fresh talent who possess the necessary skills to fill the identified gaps (Slayton, 2004, p.5). In an effort to determine if the human capital employed in their organisations are worth the investment spent on them by the employer, Chief Executive Officers (CEOs)and the Chief Finance Officers (CFOs) usually use quantitative metrics to measure the employees’ performance (Falcone and Sachs, 2007, p. viii). Through performance appraisals of each employee, the CEOs or CFOs are then able to determine if the employee is contributing, compromising or just maintaining the overall productivity results of the organisations. Overall, Falcone and Sachs (2007, p. viii) sum up the function of performance evaluation as the “system of ongoing feedback; recognition; and when necessary, redirection”. Notably, the evaluation is also an effective management tool for the organisational leaders since they may be able to identify leadership gaps that are compromising employee performance. For example, some employees simply never live to their full potential because the management in the organisations where they work never told them what the objectives of the company are. Hence, they work blindly without clear performance targets. It is for such reasons that Falcone and Sachs (2007) point out that performance evaluation needs to be an ongoing process, which provided the management and their subordinates a viable engagement environment, which not only sets the platform for employee to understand the expectation of the employer, but also makes the management better and effective leaders. Where performance evaluation is conducted without appearing like a tool of antagonising employees, it becomes a vital tool for employee motivation and job satisfaction (Falcone and Sachs, 2007). This report looks at the performance used in Cineworld Group Plc UK. The report evaluates the advantages of the performance management process (PMP) approach in the identified organisation and concludes that Cineworld made the right choice since employee performance is not entirely based on the skills and personal capacity of the employee, but also on other factors, some which are the responsibility of the employer. Hence, the employer has to play their part in laying out the appropriate work environment, and only then can performance evaluation be an objective exercise, which can serve to motivate and enhance employee retention. The Case of Cineworld Group Plc, UK Cineworld Group Plc is a leading cinema group in the United Kingdom and Ireland, which was established in 1995 (Cineworld Group Plc, 2011). In the two countries, the group has 78 cinemas, which not only serve as box-office movie venues, but also as private and corporate event venues. In 2010, Cineworld became the largest cinema operator in the United Kingdom based on the total box office count. The company also continue attracting business from both individual and corporate event planners, hence improving its profitability and overall success. Behind the success that Cineworld is today, is a huge workforce, which include the organisation’s chairman, the chief executive officer, the chief finance officer, line managers, supervisors and thousands of other employees working in the different departments in the organisation. Cineworld uses PMP as its major tool for employee performance evaluation. The current PMP was initiated in 2010 after a successful trial. It was then rolled out in January 2011 (Cineworld Group Plc, 2011, p. 10). The PMP at Cineworld targets senior and line managers with the intention of evaluating how well they understand the objectives of the organisation, and how they set out to achieve the same. According to information published in the 2010 annual report, the PMP framework is intended to identify exemplary performance among employees; and to identify some of the weaknesses in performance with the view of finding solutions to the same (Cineworld Group Plc, 2011, p. 10). The objectives of the PMP framework as used in Cineworld is “to further the high proportion of cinema management and supervisory positions, which are held by internally promoted employees, thereby bringing operational and financial benefits to the Group” (Cineworld Group Plc, 2011, p. 10). There are various reasons why Cineworld may have chosen to use PMP as opposed to other performance appraisal systems. For starters, PMP enhances a year-round contact between supervisors and employees as job-related planning; coaching and performance evaluation is being done (Spencer, 1999). Hence, the PMP framework does not just focus on employees’ accountabilities, but also on the role that supervisors, managers and the entire leadership plays in making organisation performance a success. In Cineworld for example, PMP focuses on ensuring that supervisor and line managers give new employees the customer orientation needed to make them effective employees. Equipping them with the knowledge necessary to make them appreciate the importance of teamwork and problem-solving initiatives is also the responsibility of the supervisor or the line manager in Cineworld (Cineworld Group Plc., 2011). Additionally, they (Supervisors) are responsible for informing and reminding employee about workplace including working hours, leave days and off–days (Falcone & Sachs, 2007). Clearly, by adopting the PMP framework, Cineworld had a clear understanding of the benefits that a production performance evaluation can bring to individual employees, and the bigger organisation. According to Falcone and Sachs (2007), performance evaluations should not only serve to point out employee achievements and failures, but should also be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses that individuals have. Ideally, an employee whose weaknesses are in a particular area can be paired with another employee whose strengths would cover up for the same. According to Spencer (1999), such pairing of employees especially in work teams enables contemporary organisation to make maximal use of employees’ capabilities, while negating the effect of their weaknesses on the business. Spencer (1999) argue that since its rare to find absolute perfection in employees, the organisations that will succeed in future are those who will learn the art of maximising the strengths of their employees, while finding effective means of countering for their shortcomings. Why PMP? Before adopting the PMP framework, Cineworld did not have a performance measurement tool. In its 2007 annual report for example, the organisation admitted that no form of performance evaluation had taken place since the organisation had not yet set a framework to do so. Three years later, Cineworld put PNP into trial, and later implemented it in 2011. Although its not explicitly stated in the reports released by the company, one can imagine that the process of finding the right framework to use was a tasking exercise that perhaps took some research, consulting and decision-making on Cineworld’ part. While it is agreeable that performance evaluations do play a vital role in gauging individual employee’s performance and determining if they are indeed living up to the expectations that their employer have of them, there are contention on just how organisations should go about carrying out such evaluations. Boone and Kurtz (2010, p. 259) for example argue that the evaluation can include “everything from attendance to goals met”. Based on the results of such evaluation, Boone and Kurtz (2010, p. 259) then propose that a manager can make decisions regarding monetary and non-monetary awards, which could include promotions, compensation, transfers, additional training and in worst case scenarios, termination. Comparing Boone and Kurtz’s (2010) views regarding performance evaluations and measurements, it is rather obvious that they differ from the PNP framework as used in Cineworld. In the latter, performance evaluation is not only seen as a reflection of an individual’s capabilities in the work place, but also as a reflection of how supportive and effective the workplace is. Boone and Kurtz (2010, p. 259) further propose that performance evaluation and measurements be conducted severally in any given year in order to provide an accurate reflection of how employees are performing. PNP on the other hand maintains that performance evaluation should not be a scheduled undertaking; rather, the PNP framework proposes that line managers and supervisors should maintain an all-year round contact with their employee in order to gauge performance, provide direction through coaching, and encourage team work where necessary (Slayton, 2004). Among the widely used alternatives that Cineworld could have opted for include the 3600 feedback framework where an individual employee’s performance is laid bare to colleagues, supervisors, and even external and internal customers for review ( Boone and Kurtz, 2010; Fleenor, Taylor and Chappelow, 2008). The major advantage of the 360 degrees analysis approach is pegged on the fact that it is not only the ‘boss’ who evaluates the employee’s performance, but also the people who come to contact with the employee regularly. Hence, the 3600 approach is likely to be more objective, and with more frank feedback since the reviews is usually anonymous. One notable advantage that PNP has over the 3600 approach is the fact that while the former has a coaching aspect that helps an individual employees find solutions to some of the weak performance areas identified during the evaluation process, the latter does not (Fleenor et al., 2008). Hence the 3600 framework fails to address the ‘what next after the performance evaluation” question as effectively as PMP does through coaching. Motivating employees through performance evaluation Cineworld seems to have chosen an ideal framework for evaluating the performance of its employees because as Grote (2002) observes, PMP scores highly in regard to motivating superior performance among workers. Specifically, through constant engagement with the employees, line managers and supervisors instil organisational values into the employees in addition to making them aware about the performance threshold expected of them (Grote, 2002, p. 6). Second, PMP motivates employees by providing them with the tool to prove that they are actually superior performers. According to Grote (2002, p. 6), nothing is as motivating to an employee as knowing that their efforts will be recognised by their employer. Hence, having a performance evaluation mechanism allows such employees to work without the fear that their efforts will be shrouded in the maze of other people’s work. Finally, PMP motivates employees through removing from them the stigma of being labelled average or poor performers. When such an all-year round performance evaluation framework is in place, the employees are assured that their efforts will count for something and that in the end, the same efforts may earn them increased compensation, or better work positions through promotions. Setting goals through performance evaluation Goal setting is a management process that is essential is any superior performance is to be attained (Grote, 2002, p.6). Through the constant engagement that line managers and supervisors at Cineworld have with the employees, it is thus likely that everybody know the organisational goals by heart. This is highly likely because all job performances are geared towards achieving the same goals. Setting interim goals may however be the prerogative of the managers and the supervisors working under them, who together with the employees who perform the job-related tasks must devise short-term goals that will eventually lead to the attainment of the larger organisational objectives. An employee working in the marketing department in Cineworld, will for example work with his immediate supervisor and line manager to devise short term goals for one movie season. The goals set will include the amount of people they target for the specific season, and the strategies to use. The line manager, the supervisors and the employee will probably work together in order to come up with a winning strategy intended to attract as many people to the cinemas in an identified screening season. Counselling and coaching employees through performance evaluation Not everyone whose performance does not measure up deserves to be branded as a hopeless poor performer; as HR managers are well aware, performance in employees is affected by myriad factors in their private and work environments. For example, the chatting that goes around the coffee machine may affect the accountant who sits near it. Hence, the manager can either relocate the coffee machine to a more neutral location in the office, or impart the accountant with noise coping habits through counselling or coaching him. Either way, the manager/supervisor need to work together to find a solution that will optimise the accountants performance. As seen in figure 1, the coaching mechanism in PMP allows supervisors to interact with the employees, thus making it easier for employees to open up to their seniors regarding situations that may be compromising their ability to work. In Cineworld, it is stated that the organisations aims to use the PMP framework to “increase further the high proportion of cinema management and supervisory positions which are held by internally promotes employees, thereby bringing operational and financial benefits to the group” (Cineworld Group Plc, 2011). This expectation by Cineworld coincides well with Grote (2002, p. 6) statement, which states that managers are not only supposed to act as coaches to employees working under them, but also as good “mentors to their protégés”. Although there is no indication that Cineworld has a pay-for-performance compensation method, there is some indication in the 2010 annual report that high performing employees are rewarded directly through bonuses or indirectly through promotions and hence higher salaries (Cineworld Group Plc, 2011, p. 10). Such approach by Cineworld is supported in literature by Boone and Kurtz (2010); Falcone and Sachs (2007); Grote (2002); and Paladino (2010) who collectively admit that performance evaluations provides most organisations with the appropriate mechanism for use in rewarding employees that show exemplary performance. Disadvantages of PMP One apparent disadvantage of PMP as a performance evaluation tool is the fact that it consumes a significant amount of the manager’s time. As Grote argues however, the time that a manager spends on performance evaluation is too little compared to the amount of time he has the entire year; besides, performance evaluation is a valuable way to spend time considering its benefits to the organisation, and the individual employee who may develop from constructive criticism. Grote (2002, p. 9) also notes that performance evaluation may be the source of negative feedbacks for the employees, and this may adversely affect their motivation, as well as their intentions to stay in the firm . Notably however, managers and supervisors can try to counter this negative aspect through positive reinforcement to the employees. Paladino (2010) also suggests that in addition to the shortcomings in performance, managers/supervisors should also be objective enough to note the positive accomplishment of each employee. Finally, PMP just like other performance evaluation frameworks is prone to biases. The evaluators (managers/supervisors) are only human and they are subject to personal preferences and dislikes. Paladino (2010) however recommends that organisations should encourage the use of structured and objective process in performance evaluation in order to minimise bias-related errors. Conclusion Performance Measurement Process is just one way that organisations can evaluate the performance of its employees. In Cineworld, it was identified as the ideal framework for performance evaluation, and as seen elsewhere in this report, the selection of the framework must have been for a good reason. Specifically, the framework’s approach to giving the management (managers and supervisors) a role to play in ensuring that employees perform well is commendable. It is clear that Cineworld heeded evidence published in human resource management literature, which indicates that, beyond their skills and personal capabilities, employees are affected at work by other factors. Factors that cause them unhappiness generally lead to low performance, while those that cause satisfaction, generally lead to improved performance. Personal Experience Undertaking this exercise has been an eye opener for me especially in the field of managing people in the workplace. I have learnt that no matter how skilful a person is, they cannot perform optimally in their respective jobs if : i) their employer does not clearly stipulate the goals and objectives to be attained; ii) the work environment is not conducive; iii) their efforts are not appreciated; and iv) their employer bashes them for any single mistake they make. I have also learnt that there is no such thing as a perfect employee, and hence human resource departments have to learn how to compliment the weaknesses of one employee with the strengths of another, or remedy the same through employee development initiatives such as training, coaching or counselling. Luckily, performance evaluation provides HR practitioners with an ideal framework which can be used to identify skills gaps, weaknesses and threats that exist in the workforce. With the right HR solutions, organisation can develop a formidable, loyal, satisfied, efficient and effective workforce, which can beat all odds to take the organisation to where it wants to be in terms of profits and corporate success. Weatherly (2003, p.1) was right when he said that the human capital is the greatest asset that any firm can have. This then underscore the importance that HR practitioners in any firm. I encountered several challenges in the course of this assignment most of which were related to information access. Getting to know the performance evaluation framework that Cineworld uses was especially tricky in the beginning since a search on ‘Google’ did not reveal much and an email to the company went unanswered. However, with the combination of the right keywords, I managed to access the 2010 annual report, where I found evidence that Cineworld did indeed use PMP for performance employee performances. I may not be the right person to rate my participation in class due to self-bias; however, gauging my contribution by the type of engagement I had with my peers, I could say that I was relatively effective. I specifically helped XYZ understand _____ concept, and I also helped QWE with the _____. References Boone, L E & Kurtz, D L 2010, Contemporary Business, 14th edn, John Wiley and Sons, London. Cineworld Group Plc 2011, ‘Annual report and accounts 2010’ pp. 1-84, viewed 29 November 2011, www.cineworldplc.com/download/pdf/Annual_Report_2010.pdf Falcone, P & Sachs, R T 2007, Productive performance appraisals, 2nd edn, AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, New York. Fleenor, J. W, Taylor, S & Chappelow, C 2008, Leveraging the impact of 360-degree feedback, John Wiley & Sons, London. Grote, R. C 2002, The performance appraisal question and answer book: A survival guide to managers, AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn, New York. Paladino, B 2010, Innovative corporate performance management: Five key principles to accelerate results, John Wiley and Sons, London. Slayton, K 2004, Performance appraisal handbook, US Department of Interior, Washington DC. Weatherly, L A 2003 ‘The elusive asset- measuring and managing human capital: a strategic imperative for HR’, SHRM Research Quarterly, pp. 1-8, viewed 30 November 2011, < http://www.ispi.org/pdf/suggestedReading/6_Weatherly_HumanCapital.pdf> Read More