Evaluate the role of the line manager in managing under-performance - Essay Example

? Evaluate the role of the line manager in managing under-performance Introduction The evaluation of employee performance within modern organizations can be a challenging task. Managers who are interested in keeping employee performance at high levels need to ensure that conditions in the organizational environment favour the personal development of employees, meaning that space is left to employees for taking initiatives at the level that the rules and the ethics of the organization are not violated. On the other hand, the responses of employees to daily organizational challenges are not standardized. In fact, the research developed in this field, as analytically presented below, has revealed that the success of employees in regard to the tasks assigned to them can be affected by a series of factors. The specific issue is explored in this study. Emphasis is given on the terms of the employees’ under performance within modern organizations and the methods available to managers for confronting the particular problem. The review of the relevant literature proved that under performance is a severe problem for many organizations globally. For this reason, a series of schemes and plans have been developed for ensuring that employee performance is aligned with certain standards. However, in practice the avoidance of failures in tasks assigned to employees in various organizational departments is not feasible. The need for the improvement and the enrichment of existing methods for supporting employee performance is emergent. The criteria on which such initiatives should be based are explained below trying to emphasize on the role of managers in the success of the particular plans. 2. ‘Under performance’ in the workplace – definition and characteristics In order to identify the responsibilities of managers towards the control of employees’ under performance it is necessary to understand primarily the context of the term ‘performance’ as related to various levels of organization. In accordance with Nelson and Quick (2010) defining ‘performance’ can be a challenging task since the term is likely to be differentiated in job positions with different characteristics. For example, ‘for medical doctors, performance refers to the combination of interpersonal and technical skills while for medical doctors the term ‘performance’ is depended rather on specific financial and administration skills’ (Nelson and Quick 2010, p.196). It is assumed that under performance reflects the lack of the skills that are necessary for responding to the needs of a particular role. Dowling, Festing and Engle (2008) tried to identify the key elements of under performance in regard to expatriates. They came to the conclusion that for expatriates, failure, which incorporates under performance, means ‘the premature return of an expatriate’ (Dowling, Festing and Engle 2008, p.112). In accordance with this view, under performance can be used for highlighting the failure of an employee to complete successfully the tasks assigned to him. A similar definition of the term ‘under performance’ is included in the study of Scullion (2006). In accordance with the above researcher, the term ‘under performance’ should be defined as ‘assignment failure’ (Scullion 2006, p.60). This explanation of under performance may be inaccurate, i.e. it may not reflect the actual status of employee performance. Such risk exists in case that an employee failed to complete the tasks assigned to him but not because of his fault but due to facts or conditions that they could not prevented, like, for example, a strike. From a similar point of view, Werner and DeSimone (2008) noted that the term ‘under performance’, or else ‘poor performance’, is difficult to be clearly defined since it is likely to be related to different criteria. For example, the level of performance of an employee may be characterized as high in regarding to a specific position and as low regarding to another position. For this reason, it is suggested that the term under performance is explained using the following process: first ‘a set of standards should be set on which the level of performance will be evaluated’ (Werner and DeSimone 2008, p.319). Then, if the performance of an employee is above those standards, his performance would be characterized as high. Otherwise, it should be considered as ‘under performance’ or ‘poor performance’ (Werner and DeSimone 2008, p.319) 3. Causes of under performance The development of the phenomenon of employee under performance in modern organizations has been related to many factors. In accordance with Hadikin and O’Driscoll (2000) employees are likely to under perform when the conditions in the workplace are hostile for them. Reference is made especially to bullying, as a problem expanded in most organizations worldwide. It is noted though that the response of employees to bullying is not standardized (Hadikin and O’Driscoll 2000). Under certain conditions, bullying may not lead to employee under performance, if for example the employee involved decides to report the problem to the firm’s HR manager. From another point of view, Berman (1998) considers that employee under performance is not related to the conditions in the organizational environment but rather to the personal attitudes of employees. It is explained that employees who are likely to avoid taking initiatives in regard to critical organizational issues tend to under perform when having to face such conditions (Berman 1998). Moreover, employees that believe in their capabilities and their potentials to respond effectively to the needs of all tasks assigned to them are not expected to under perform, in opposition with employees who believe that their performance can ‘be affected by factors outside their control’ (Berman 1998, p.244). On the other hand, Shields (2007) explained that when having to identify the causes of employees’ under performance managers should search both for personal reasons, such as the attitudes or the background of employees, and for external reasons, meaning the conditions of the organizational environment. However, it is not explained which of these factors are likely to affect most employee performance. Also, the criteria on which this task should be based are not made clear. Moreover, Wilton (2010) states that employees’ under performance can be depended on a series of factors that are not easy to be controlled. In this context, employees can fail to complete the tasks assigned to them if they have not fully understood the manager’s guidelines (Wilton 2010). Also, this failure may be the result of the failure of employees to realize the challenges of the tasks; tasks which seemed to proceed normally up to a point may not be completed finally if employees are not able to meet all these tasks’ requirements, a case that had not been taken into consideration by the employees when they started working on the specific tasks. There is also the following case: employees may have clearly understood the tasks assigned to them and the risks involved but they may not be aware of the methodologies required for the completion of these tasks (Wilton 2010). All the above issues are likely to appear when employees have not effectively measured the risks or the requirements of the tasks assigned to them. On the other hand, it is quite possible that employees are not able to reach the required level of performance because of the lack of adequate or appropriate resources, which are critical for the completion of the tasks assigned to the employees (Wilton 2010). Finally, there would be another cause of employee under performance: it is the case that the employee understands the instructions of the tasks assigned to him and he has all necessary resources; however, he avoids completing tasks because ‘he cannot understand their importance or significance for the organization’ (Wilton 2010). The last case could be possibly related to the lack of employee motivation (Wilton 2010). More specifically, when employee motivation within a particular organization is low, employees may not pay the necessary attention at the tasks assigned to them, a fact that could affect their judgment on the significance of these tasks. The importance of motivation as a factor influencing employee performance is analysed in the study of Hakansson, Nguyen and Hartung (2009). It is noted that if employees are not motivated then they are likely to under perform. Reference is also made to the tools used commonly by managers in order to promote employee motivation: rewarding, promotion and other similar benefits. The above view is in accordance with the theories developed in the particular field. For example, ‘the theory of X and Y developed by McGregor in 1960s’ (Hakansson, Nguyen and Hartung 2009, p.164, see also Graph 1, Appendix). The X theory suggests that individuals tend to dislike work but they can be expected to follow the instructions given to them since they ‘like to be directed’ (Hakansson, Nguyen and Hartung 2009, p.164). An opposite view is included in the Y theory, which emphasizes on the efforts of individuals to support their ambitions, efforts that may set in risk the organizational plans related to the achievement of organizational goals (Hakansson, Nguyen and Hartung 2009). In other words, personal goals are likely to be different from the organizational goals and this fact leads, necessarily, to conflicts within organizations. These conflicts can lead to employee under performance, either in the short or the long term. The Hygiene theory of Herzberg (Graph 2, Appendix) would be also used for explaining under performance within a particular organization (Hakansson, Nguyen and Hartung 2009). In each organization employees are likely to be motivated when their needs, as explained in the theory of Herzberg, are addressed. If existing organizational strategies are in opposition with these needs, then employee motivation is expected to be quite low, leading to employee under performance. A similar approach for explaining the under performance of employees within modern organizations is used in the study of Pahl and Richter (2009). In accordance with the above researchers the key reasons for employee under performance could be identified in the culture of each organization. It is explained that in organizations where communication is poor and where the respect to individuals is low, employees are likely to under perform (Pahl and Richter 2009). In the above case, employees should not be held responsible for their failure to meet the standards set by the organization. Rather, it is the responsibility of the organizational leaders to promote necessary measures, as possible, so that trust and cooperation within their organization to be increased. In other words, the under performance of employees may not be related to the tasks themselves, meaning the nature of the task involved or the resources available as noted in the studies presented earlier; it can be also related to the quality of relationships among employees, i.e. of the level of communication and collaboration within each organization. Moreover, Perry (2009) noted that certain organizational tasks are, by their nature, difficult to be developed unless they are supported by many employees, meaning that the success of these tasks is depended on the level of cooperation within the organization. However, even if such term is met within a particular organization there could be, still, chances for failures in regard to the completion of certain organizational tasks in case that the firm’s managers are not able to support these tasks. Reference is made specifically to the inability of managers to ‘manage virtual teams and to understand the level of commitment requited for the completion of a specific organizational task’ (Perry 2009, p.315). In other words, the above study is based on the view that the under performance of employees within modern organizations is strongly depended on the capabilities of managers to respond to the needs of the relevant activities. It is assumed that the development of effective plans by managers can help employees to keep their performance at high levels. This perspective is explored in the section that follows. 4. Measures available to managers for improving employee performance within their organisation Managers who aim to control employee under performance should proceed to specific measures. Primarily, they should ensure that mechanisms are in place in order to measure the performance of employees periodically. In this way, the potential failures in employees’ tasks could be identified early and major problems in the firm’s operation could be avoided. The specific initiative is analysed in the study of Schneier et al. (1995). In the above study, reference is made to a performance evaluation system consisted by two key processes: a) at a first level, ‘the performance of employees should be measured against objectives and ongoing duties’ (Schneier et al. 1995, p.335), b) then, ‘the performance of each employee is compared to the performance of other employees, preferably within the same department’ (Schneier et al. 1995, p.335). The above plan is considered as particularly effective, offering to the managers the advantages of being informed on time in regard to the performance of employees at all organizational levels. However, the particular plan seems to have a negative aspect: it may lead to the increase of competition within the organization, a fact that can result to severe conflicts especially if the criteria used for the comparison of employees’ productivity are not clearly defined. On the other hand, Pike and Barnes (1996) note that the effective control of employee underperformance can be achieved only in organizations where the environment is ‘error-friendly’ (Pike and Barnes 1996, p.166). Such environment allows failures, a fact that it is not necessarily negative. Indeed, in organizations where such plans are adopted, employees feel free to take initiatives being aware that a potential failure would not result to punishment, at least at the level that the organization’s activities are not severely harmed. In this way, employee motivation is enhanced while employee under performance is effectively controlled. The development of appropriate measures by line measures in order to control employee under performance needs to be carefully organized. In accordance with Carter and McMahon (2005) when having to develop such projects line managers need to have access to a series of data that have to be updated. However, moving across the organization in order to monitor the performance of employees and, at the same time, gathering data on employee performance can be a challenging task (Carter and McMahon 2005). It is suggested that line managers in each organizational department cooperate with line managers in other organizational sectors (Carter and McMahon 2005); through the exchange of data gathered in each department it would be easier for line managers to assess whether employees in a particular organizational sector have failed to reach the required level of performance. On the other hand, Churchill and Frankiewicz (2006) note that the development of effective measures for controlling employee underperformance is feasible only if managers involved in the relevant processes have set objective goals. It is explained that these goals need to be related to the activities in which each employee participates. For example, for assessing the level of performance of employees in the accounting department it would be necessary to check the level of the errors and the speed when processing the organization’s financial reports (Churchill and Frankiewicz 2006). No reference is made to the time period that the above process should last or to the criteria on which the involvement of employees in certain errors and delays would be assessed. For example, when an employee has been found to be involved in a series of errors related to the firm’s financial statements, the precise terms that justify the responsibility of the specific employee should be defined. The assumptions that the particular employee would be normally expected to be involved in the specific failure are not adequate for justifying the punishment of the employee for the above failures. The involvement of line managers in the control of employee under performance should not lead to the deterioration of communication between managers and employees but rather to the increase of communication and collaboration between these two groups so that the actual causes of under performance are eliminated (Houldsworth and Jirasinghe 2006). In any case, managers can choose among different methodologies for controlling employee under performance within their organization. However, they should primarily develop appropriately customized appraisal processes (Mathis and Jackson 2010). Then, they should use standard forms of evaluation ensuring equality and objectivity in regard to the results of the particular processes (Bacal 2004). Also, in order for performance appraisal to be valuable in identifying early the potential signs of employee under performance it should be developed periodically, preferably monthly so that any severe failures in organization’s operations to be avoided (Banfield and Kay 2008). At this point the following issue should be highlighted: often managers seek for the causes of employee under performance only in the side of employees, i.e. they tend to avoid their own responsibility for the employees’ failures in regard to the tasks assigned to them (Fournies 2000). In this context, employee under performance would require the improvement of communication and cooperation between managers and employees. 5. Is under performance related to conduct or to capability? In accordance with the issues discussed above, employee under performance can be considered as a problem related both to conduct and to capability. Indeed, as proved through the employee motivation theories mentioned above, i.e. the one of Herzberg and that of McGregor, employees can perform well under the terms that their needs are covered (Herzberg hygiene theory) or that the required standard of performance is aligned with their personal attitudes on the value of each task assigned to them (McGregor X and Y theory). The above view is in accordance with that of Williams (2002) who emphasized on the dependency of employee performance on human behaviour, meaning the behavioural characteristics of each employee. A similar theory is that of McClelland theory of Acquired Needs (Arthur 2008). In the context of the above theory, employee performance is likely to be affected by the following factors: ‘achievement, affiliation or power’ (Arthur 2008, p.175). It is assumed that each employee is capable of perform well if certain terms are met, for example, if his targets in regards to his personal development have been met or if the level of his compensation is quite satisfactory. From a similar point of view, Greene (2010) notes that employees who are fairly rewarded are likely to perform well, a fact indicating the relationship between employee performance and capability. The use of the expectancy theory for explaining the nature of employee performance leads to similar assumptions. The expectancy theory notes that an employee is expected to perform well if he thinks that his work will lead to the achievement of a specific target (Gitman and McDaniel 2008). In other words, the above theory is based on the close relationship between motivation and behaviour (Gitman and McDaniel 2008), indicating further the potential capability of every employee to reach a specific level of performance. 6. Conclusion The control of employee under performance can be effective only if certain terms are met. In any case, line managers have a critical role in controlling employee under performance. However, his or her involvement in the relevant processes is not standardized, meaning that each manager can choose a different approach for addressing employee under performance. At this point it is necessary for the communication between employees and managers to be highly developed, otherwise no effective solutions could be developed for addressing the specific problem. A key finding of the research developed for this study has been the fact that the causes of employee under performance can vary. Employee behaviour, personal capabilities and organizational environment can play a key role in employee under performance especially when the relevant measures are not developed on time. As for the level of the success of the managers’ initiatives in the specific field, this is not guaranteed. Also, the effectiveness of the managers’ plans regarding the control of employee under performance can be verified in the long term. References Arthur, D. 2008. Performance Appraisals. AMACOM Division of American Management Association. Bacal, R. 2004. Manager's guide to performance reviews. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Bacal, R. 2004. Manager's guide to performance reviews. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Berman, E. 1998. Productivity in public and nonprofit organizations: strategies and techniques. London: SAGE Publications. Carter, E., McMahon, F. 2005. Improving Employee Performance Through Workplace Coaching: A Practical Guide to Performance Management. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Churchill, C., Frankiewicz, C. 2006. Making microfinance work: managing for improved performance. International Labour Organization, 2006 Dowling, P., Festing, M., Engle, A. 2008. International human resource management: managing people in a multinational context. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Fournies, F. 2000. Coaching for improved work performance. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Gitman, L., McDaniel, C. 2008. The Future of Business: The Essentials. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Greene, R. 2010. Rewarding performance: guiding principles, custom strategies. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Hadikin, R., O’Driscoll, M. 2000. The bullying culture: cause, effect, harm reduction. Oxford: Elsevier Health Sciences. Hakansson, A., Nguyen, N., Hartung, R. 2009. Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technologies and Applications: Third KES International Symposium, KES-AMSTA 2009, Uppsala, Sweden, June 3-5, 2009, Proceedings. Berlin: Springer. Houldsworth, E., Jirasinghe, D. 2006. Managing and measuring employee performance. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Mathis, R., Jackson, J. 2010. Human Resource Management. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Nelson, D., Quick, J. 2010. Organizational Behaviour: Science, the Real World, and You. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Pahl, N., Richter, A. 2009. How To Gain Trust From Employees. Norderstedt: GRIN Verlag. Perry, B. 2009. Enterprise Operations: Operational Level. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Pike, J., Barnes, R. 1996. TQM in action: a practical approach to continuous performance improvement. Berlin: Springer. Shields, J. 2007. Managing employee performance and reward: concepts, practices, strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneier, C., Shaw, D., Beatty, R., Baird, L. 1995. Performance measurement, management, and appraisal sourcebook. Massachusetts: Human Resource Development. Scullion, H. 2006. Global staffing. London: Routledge. Werner, J., DeSimone, R. 2008. Human Resource Development. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Williams, R. 2002. Managing employee performance: design and implementation in organizations. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Wilton, N. 2010. An Introduction to Human Resource Management. London: SAGE Publications. Appendix Graph 1 – X and Y theory of McGregor (Source: http://www.marcbowles.com/courses/adv_dip/module1/chapter1/amc1_ch1_two2.htm) Graph 2- Herzberg theory on employee motivation (Source: http://nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadhb.html) Read More