Performance Management - Essay Example

Performance Management Introduction Performance management is a process that aims at improving the general working of an organization through specifically addressing the employees, their needs, performance and development in the organization. Having an effective performance management system enables improvement of the overall performance of the employees in the work place hence increasing the organization’s productivity (Spitzer, 2007). Google Inc. is one of the most successful organizations in the world and its employees are rated among the most satisfied and contented in their work place. All these are as a result of good performance management. Performance management has several values in as far as the performance of the employees at Google Inc. is concerned as will be explained in detail below. The value that performance management in this organization can be summarized in a few headings which include enabling planning, decision making and control, increasing communication, motivating the employees through various ways, facilitating implementation of the company’s policies and eventually evaluating the performance from before the performance management and after its implementation (Spitzer, 2007). Planning Google Inc. has been built greatly and the results all over the world speak for themselves. However, one of the things it has always believed in is that great is not always good enough and this is the reason that it started the putting plans in place to improve how it manages the performance of its employees including the managers. It sought ways to ensure that all its resources are being put into action in making the employees happy, satisfied as well as have incentives enough to work and increase their performance which would ensure sustainability of the company’s success (Dooren, et al. 2010). The planning started with the management as part of the employee team and trying to ensure that its performance increases through making them better bosses. The planning was carried out by a small team but it involved the whole company. The employees were given surveys on what would make the bosses better and the feedback was incorporated in the performance management package. This was in addition to the performance reviews given to the managers themselves, the praises and complaints they had been receiving from the employees and even customers among other channels (Fryer, Antony & Ogden, 2009). Google Inc. has another way to review performance management of their employees and this is through the employees setting goals and objectives for themselves and then quantifying all these goals and explaining ways in which they will be able to attain these goals within the specified time (Dooren, et al. 2010). This is meant to empower the employees to plan their work and ensure that they stick to their plan without being pushed. The planning incentive and motivation have improved greatly the performance of employees as well as made the performance management process be slightly easier for the management which previously had to carry out all that work of performance management for their employees. The results of this plan are better if made through stages and then modified or even refined before the final performance management plan is implemented. This way, it will be guaranteed that the final plan for performance management to employees will not only be perfect and acceptable but will be sustainable as well (Cokins, 2009). Incorporating the company’s goals and objectives will also ensure that the planning will be in line with the current and future plans of the company and hence further increasing the sustainability of the company and increasing the satisfaction of the employees (Lin & Lee, 2011). Decision making and control Performance management enables in decision making of both the employees and the management and with decision making comes control. In more cases than not, employees leave their workplaces and search for other organizations and companies to work for. This is not because they have no benefits and large salaries but because they large the decision making abilities as well as control over their decisions and career future growth. This is one of the greatest things that Google Inc. learnt and made its purpose to give to their employees in order to keep them in the organization (Daniels & Bailey, 2014). Another technique linked to decision making performance management for Google Inc. is the aspect of having different managers from different departments come together and assess the performance of their employees. This not only gives the managers increased decision making and control abilities but also ensures that the performance reviews for the different employees are not affected by biasness and they are as fair as possible. When both the employers and the employees are satisfied with their performance reviews being done fairly, they are bound to work even harder as they are sure that their performance will be graded according to their hard work and no other unjust and biased qualities. The ability to make decisions by managers has made these employees much more comfortable and satisfied in their job as well as gains a sense of ownership. When employees acquire a sense of ownership in the organization, they are able to make each and every decision correctly and minding the effects it may have to not only them but the rest of the people in the organization (Harvard Business School Press, 2013). Communication As mentioned above, performance management is not only about planning and monitoring but also reviewing the performance of the employees in a company. The most effective of the performance management takes place with constant communication and feedback from both the management and employees (Krausert, 2009). For example, when the managers review the performance of their employees but fail to provide and in the most effective of the ways, the performance is bound to not improve or even decrease some more. Engineers and managers of Google Inc. a few years back can be said to not have been the best communicators. The engineers thought that their work simply involved machinery and programs and hence did not bother with any form of communication. What this however led to is a one-sided performance as they failed to make their points pass across or even some of their ideas adopted and implemented as a result of poor communication with the managers. Once however the company embarked on performance management process, it incorporated the engineers and management in the process and targeted their communication in depth (Krausert, 2009). Google Inc. came up with the best way to increase the value of their performance reviews towards their employees. The managers select a few employees at random from a department who are not in the senior position but also the junior ones as well. They go through the reviews and are given a chance to provide an honest feedback about the review and mention what areas need improvement and which make great positive impact to the performance and growth of the organization (Lin & Lee, 2011). The employees understand each other and by them being used to provide feedback in addition to the feedback and communication with the employees themselves after the reviews, these employees have been able to improve their performance to greater lengths making the exercise a task to look forward to rather than one people try all means to avoid (Nielsen, 2014). What this Google Inc. story indicates is that it emphasizes even further the value of performance management in any organization. It indicates that communication which forms the backbone of every organization as people cannot relate effectively without communication is necessary in not only performance management but in the overall productivity of the company (Lin & Lee, 2011). Employers that cannot properly relate to their employees will have a hard time fostering trust with them and hence developing a relation that is not based on boss-servant basis which is not only threatening but intimidating as well. Motivation Motivation when it comes to performance management is slightly different. This is so because the motivation and especially monetary motivation only takes place after the review and it is not a must to be happening each and every time. The need for motivation in performance management is all about making the employees find the need to grow and become the best in their field (Davies & Davies, 2012). They therefore do not need incentives but rather encouragement and continuous evaluation and constant feedback on their performance from their managers. This is one of the things that Google Inc. discovered on research about performance review. They made the motivation not about the money and hence introduced other incentives which followed the reviews. The motivation was purely about what areas the employee needed to improve on if they were to attain their goals and objectives which aimed at making them much better in their work as well as facilitate career growth. According to Armstrong & Stephens, (2005), even though the reviews only took place initially once a year, the results of the performance review had the whole year to be discussed and improvements made based on the kind of motivation the manager provided to the different employees. This is however not to say that Google Inc. does not use the results of the performance to increase the pay for its employees because this is done after the review results. However, as mentioned above, in a bid to increase the value of performance management of the company, both the employees and the managers do not dwell much on monetary incentives but rather what would make the person grow career wise as this would mean an increase of skills and increased performance with more innovation (Gruman & Saks, 2011). Implementation On the downside, implementation of the performance management is not as easy as it always sounds and it may take even years before a routine that works excellently is established and that may not be always the case with the all the departments in the same organization. Implementation of performance management has proven to a challenging task for Google Inc. as well and especially where the management and engineers were concerned who did not think about the importance of their own performance being evaluated. Making these two categories of people accept performance reviews and stick to the feedback took a while but eventually following what they had done with the rest of the junior employees, the performance of the management in their own work as well as in reviewing of the performance of their employees improved drastically (Krausert, 2009). Once the performance management of the employees was working as planned and the employees were motivated and satisfied and their performance increasing, then it became easier to implement their new plans. This is so because with performance management in place, it took less time to debate on projects, communication on new products, programs or clients was quick and so was the feedback and hence implementation time reduced quite drastically while the productivity and overall results increased immensely. It was at this point that Google Inc. was able to establish itself in many other nations and was quickly adopted by foreigners as the best search engine (Cardy & Leonard, 2014). Google finally learnt that when the employees are much more satisfied with their work, communicate much more openly with their bosses and even hold a sense of ownership in the organization, then implementation of new deals and acquisitions not only becomes easier but quicker and much more faster and enjoyable as well (Gruman & Saks, 2011). Performance evaluation Performance management leads to proper performance evaluation of the work of the employees. Most organizations evaluate the performance of their employees and do nothing to change it. When the employees are not motivated at work, lack proper and open communication amongst them and with the management as well as lack a chance at decision making, the constant evaluation carried out on them is simply useless and ineffective (Cokins, 2009). Google only does its performance evaluation twice in a year which according to Sahu, (2009) is not very effective and especially when it comes to motivating the employees to be better in their career growths. The increased benefits in the company as a way to increase their performance seems to work but it is only a short term solution to the performance and if nothing long term is implemented, then the value they have attached to their performance management might be all for nothing (Hoque & Parker, 2014). In order for a better and more effective performance management and overall increase in performance for both the managers and employees, it is important for Google to synchronize their company’s values and objectives to those of the employees and increase their reviews to at least four times in a year to avoid delay in implementation and testing of the feedback from the previous reviews. The value of the performance evaluation can therefore be even higher than it currently is in organizations that are yet to implement or even develop their performance management models like Google Inc. already has as seen in the earlier points above (Holloway, 2009). Conclusion In lieu of all that has been discussed about the value of performance management in Google Inc., it is quite obvious to conclude that performance management once established and implemented in the right way and adopted positively by the intended parties, then the results will be increased performance, increased productivity, open communication channels between management and the rest of the employees as well as facilitation of innovation (Marr & Gray, 2012). All these have led to the company maintain its market position and competitive nature. By the end of the performance evaluation phase, performance management will have increased the motivation of the employees through ways such as training and development as well as increasing their rewards in salaries and other benefits among many other ways. It is the motivation that has kept the employees working in the company for a long time without seeking other employers. All that is needed to continue increasing the value of performance management in Google Inc. as well as other organizations is to keep following the above discussed values and processes. Performance management is therefore always for the best in any organization no matter how long it might take to make it work or put into place. References Armstrong, M. & Stephens, T. (2005). A Handbook of Employee Reward Management and Practice. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Cardy, R. & Leonard, B. (2014). Performance Management: Concepts, Skills and Exercises. London: Routledge. Cokins, G. (2009). Performance Management: Integrating Strategy Execution, Methodologies, Risk, and Analytics. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Daniels, A. & Bailey, J. (2014). Performance Management: Changing Behaviour That Drives Organizational Performance. Atlanta: Performance Management Publication. Davies, A. & Davies, R. (2012). Value Management: Translating Aspirations into Performance. Surrey: Gower Publishing Ltd. Dooren, W. et al. (2010). Performance Management in the Public Sector. London: Routledge. Fryer, K., Antony, J. & Ogden, S. (2009). Performance management in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(6): 478-498. Gruman, J. & Saks, A. (2011, June). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2): 123-136. Harvard Business School Press. (2013). Performance Management: Measure and Improve the Effectiveness of Your Employees. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. Holloway, J. (2009). Performance management from multiple perspectives: taking stock. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 58(4): 391–399. Hoque, Z. & Parker, L. (2014). Performance Management in Non-profit Organizations: Global Perspectives. London: Routledge. Krausert, A. (2009). Performance Management for Different Employee Groups: A Contribution to Employment Systems Theory. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. Lin, J. & Lee, P. (2011). Performance Management in public organizations: A complexity perspective. International Public Management Review, 12(2): 81-96. Luecke, R. & Hall, B. (2006). Performance Management: Measure and Improve the Effectiveness of Your Employees. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press. Marr, B. & Gray, D. (2012). Strategic Performance Management. London: Routledge. Moynihan, D. (2008). The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Nielsen, P. (2014). Performance Management, Managerial Authority, and Public Service Performance. Journal of Public Administration, Research and Theory, 24(2): 431-458. Sahu, R. (2009). Performance Management System. New Delhi: Excel Books India. Spitzer, D. (2007). Transforming Performance Measurement: Rethinking the Way We Measure and Drive Organizational Success. New York: AMACOM. Stephens, T. (2005). Employee Reward. London: CIPD Publishing. Read More