People Resourcing and Development - Essay Example

PEOPLE RESOURCING AND DEVELOPMENT By Introduction In the context of human resources, there is a process by managers in which assessment of employee performance is conducted by comparing their performance status with set standards which they(employees) are already aware of. It is highly reliant on benchmarks. In the ensuing evaluation, managers can come up with decisions regarding the employees such as whether they require training, whether pay hike is due, whether they will be demoted, promoted, or sacked. This process is known as performance appraisal. Performance appraisal is intended to manage, improve and motivate employee performance and generally contribute to the overall output (performance) of an organization (Pilbeam&Corbridge2010, p.16).In as much as it is intended for the good of employee, manager, and overall organization, performance appraisal has become a controversial aspect of human resource functions. This is because most managers do not have clear guidelines of enacting it, and in most cases, managers have not described their ratings of the process as completely accurate or honest. In the light of this revelation, the following study text will discuss the practice of performance appraisal in an organization as being more of a curse than a blessing in improving and motivating employee performance. Performance appraisals cannot be done collectively like trainings but are conducted per individual. In short, every employee needs to have their own appraisals done by the manager. Today’s organizations on the other hand range from medium sized to large, meaning that there may be tens to hundreds or thousands of employees per organization, all under the same human resources department. This means that the manager doing the performance appraisals has to invest a lot of time into the activity (Aggarwal, Sundar, & Thakur 2013, p.617). In as much as the appraisals are done to boost the organizations, they can mean wasting a lot of precious production time especially on the part of the manager. Apart from writing the appraisals, the managers are required to meet with staff and supervisors to collect information regarding the employees. This fact portrays the curse part of performance appraisals in that managers are critical factors in organizations and if their time for important matters in diverted to lesser-deserving issues, it may result in dismalperformance due to misalignment of management duties. For instance, time for overseeing of organizational functions may reduce, therefore exposing the organization to functional problems. Managers, who are at some point classified as employees, may be demotivated rather than motivated by the task owing to its demand of time and other resources (Alexander 2006, p.4). On average, a manager may spend about an hour per employee’s performance appraisal. Therefore for an organization with 100 employees, the manager has to dedicate an approximate 100 hours on the exercise only which may amount to weeks. By the end of the exercise, the manager(s) may be overly tired from the exercise, not to mention that they are required to multi-task by performing other managerial tasks (Gikungu, Karanja, &Thinguri 2014, p.101). In the light of these, they may dislike their positions as managers due to the stress that comes with being overworked. A stressed or overworked manager is likely to develop health complications such as depression or fatigue (Brown & Benson 2003, p.64). In the event that such occurrences emerge, the effects are felt across the organization since alterations in management have to be done, or some functions may slow down. Generally, the average output of the organization goes down, and unnecessary expenses may be incurred for treatment. If a manager suffers from job dissatisfaction caused by factors such as being overworked, they may not perceive of the task as important and may therefore execute it poorly. Concisely, they may end up doing it inconsistently. For instance, they may decide to come up with the appraisals without keeping notes or taking accurate records about the employees as recommended (Durai 2010, p.278). Additionally, they may rush into the exercise without giving it the attention to details that it requires. This occurrence may have overly negative consequences to the manager, employees, and organization at large. First of all, the resulting performance appraisals may not be realistic and may see deserving employees demoted or undeserving ones exalted (Rout &Omiko 2007, p.113). Apart from individual [manager’s] problems, limitation of organizational resources may force the managers to intentionally provide negative employee appraisals. Better put, the managers may be instructed not to provide positive appraisals for the fear that the employees may demand higher pays or promotion which the organization may not be able to provide at that instant in time (Ryan 2007, n.p.). Collectively, these two implications may destroy the reputation of an organization thus disrupt its performance and branding. The biggest organizational curse that would result from an incorrectly-done performance appraisal is discouragement of the employees. Normally, a performance appraisal is expected to boost employee morale by giving them thumbs-up or encouraging them to polish on some areas (Taylor 2008, p.23). However, in the event that the process turns out to be unpleasant due to factors such as a demotivated manager or an appraisal made without making accurate inquiries, the employees may be destroyed. According to Bilikopf (2010, p.33), neutral or negative feedback in performance appraisals can lead to reduction in employee output. Negative or neutral feedback includes ratings such as “fair’, “satisfactory”, or “average” discourage employees in most cases, and having realized this, the managers or supervisors rarely communicate to their subordinates. In the long run, if this problem persists or affects a larger number of employees, it may develop into high turnover within an organization, which is an obvious curse.In the event that this happens, the performance appraisal will have reversed its role into destroying rather than strengthening the organization. Dissatisfaction with presented performance appraisals has the capacity to divide the management and employees, resulting in conflicts. This occurrence is most likely to emerge in organizations that apply the traditional methods in coming up with employee performance appraisals. Worse still, in an organization does not have effective communication channels such that the employees can give feedback to the management, the conflict may blow out of proportion (DeNisi&Kluger 2000, p.129). Conflicts may arise due to different points of view and if not solved through effective dialogue or communication, their effects may be detrimental to the organization. For instance, breakdown between the management and employees means a disruption of organizational processes due to lack of harmony. On the other hand, conflicts may lead to employee resignation and this may have an impact on the distribution of labor in the organization (Carolina 2013, p.156). In this way, the organization will have suffered rather than gain from the performance appraisals. Benchmarks are usually set in organizations and employees are required to adhere to them. During employee performance appraisals, individual assessments are compared to these benchmarks. It is therefore sufficient to state that performance appraisals are meant to keep the employees on their toes. Evidently, it is healthy to keep the employees reminded of what is expected of them. However, in the event that the benchmarks are set too high, or if too much is demanded from the employees, a high-stress environment is likely to develop in the organization (Robbins, Cenzo, Coulter & Woods 2013, p.196). Job satisfaction means that the employee enjoys working, and that the job does not impact on them negatively. In the event that the employees have to go out of their ways to fulfill the demands such as cope with repetitive extra working hours, the job ceases to please them and a stressful work environment sets in. Additionally, the appraisals should not appear to exceed the agreed terms during the hiring process. In a nutshell, when the performance appraisals create a stressful environment for everyone involved they are perceived of as organizational curses rather than blessings. Bias also suffices as one of the dominant shortfalls of performance appraisals. One characteristic of appraisals is that the assessments are conducted by humans, and are therefore prone to intentional or unintentional errors. This is evident in that most managers have confessed to the processes not being overly fair, honest, and/or accurate (Daniels& Macdonald 2005, p.97). Managers as humans may have like or dislike for their subordinates and may extend the occurrence to the appraisals. In this case, there are higher chances of unethical practices being conducted. For instance, a manager may solicit sexual favors from their subordinates in exchange for “good” appraisals. In other cases, the subordinates may apply unethical means such as bribing the managers for better appraisals (Krishnamurthy 2014, 76). Unethical conduct is a cancer to any organization and in its persistence may lead to conflicts, poor quality output, decreased motivation, subjection to legal action, and overall collapse of an organization. Conclusion Performance appraisals are in most cases perceived of as tools aimed at fostering organization output (performance) by motivating employees. This is done by highlighting areas of weakness or improvement(Harrison 2009, p.34). However, they also come with detrimental implications. As the discussion reveals, several factors may reverse the intended blessings to organizational curses. First, the exercise are time consuming and tedious, they may interfere with managers’ motivation and job satisfaction, biased managers may destroy some employees, and negative feedback may demotivate, rather than motivate the employees. In addition, if not well-executed, they may lead to organizational conflicts, high employee turnover, bad reputation, or support unethical practices. Generally, these implications would work against, rather than for the organization; thus the curse. Bibliography Aggarwal, A, Sundar, G, & Thakur, M 2013, “Techniques of Performance Appraisal- A Review”, international Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology. 2, (3): 617-623. Alexander, D 2006, “How do 360 degree performance reviews affect employee attitudes, effectiveness and performance? In Schmidt Labor Research Center Seminar Research Series. Available athttp://www.uri.edu/research/lrc/research/papers/Alexander_360.pdf [11 March, 2015]. Bilikopf, G 2010, “The Negotiated Performance Appraisal Model: Enhancing Supervisor-Subordinate Communication and Conflict Resoution”, A Research and Applications Journal. 10, (1).32-43. Brown, M, & Benson, J 2003, “Rated to Exhaustion? Reactions to Performance AppraissalProcessess”, Industrial Relations Journal.34, (1).67-71. Daniels, K, & Macdonald, L 2005, Equality, diversity and discrimination: a student text. London: CIPD. DeNisi, A, &Kluger, N 2000,“Feedback effectiveness: can 360-degree appraisals be Durai, P 2010, Human Resource Management, Pearson, India. Machado, C, &Melo, P 2013, Effective Human Resources Management in Small and Medium Enterprises: Global Perspectives, IGI Global. Gikungu, J, Karanja, B, &Thinguri, R 2014, “Investigation into the Effectiveness of Staff Appraissal in the Job Performance in Secondary Schools in Kenya”, Journal of Education and Practice, 5, (14): 101-107. Harrison, R 2009,Learning and Development (5th. Ed) CIPD: London. Krishnamurthy, V 2014, At the Helm. HarperCollins, India. Pilbeam, S, &Corbridge, M2010,People resourcing and talent planning: HRM in practice. 4th ed. Harlow: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Robbins, S, Cenzo, D, Coulter, D, & Woods, M 2013, Management: The Essentials. Pearson Higher Education. Rout, E, &Omiko, N 2007, Corporate Conflict Management. PHI Learning. Ryan, L 2007, “Is Praising EmployeesCounterproductive?”BusinessWeek.Available at http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/dec2007/ca20071227_941417.htm?link_position=link11.[11 March, 2015]. Taylor, S 2008,People Resourcing. London: CIPD. Read More