The Issue of Organizational Perfomance Management - Research Paper Example

Introduction At present, there have been endless change and transformation in many organisations compared to the previous years concerning their performance management as well as the many measurements that should be taken in their performance management (Bacal 1999). It has also been reported that when a measurement is identified, it becomes obsolete in an instant due to certain considerable changes in the organisation, affecting all organisational units and goals. Performance management primarily aims to make sure that an organisation along with its subsystems and units such as their departments, employees and processes are functioning together in an effective way in order to obtain the desired outcomes of the organisation (Gillen 2007). Because performance management is mainly focused on striving for the best possible results and aligning all units and subsystems to achieve such results, any effort or focus of performance management within any unit of the organisation, whether on the departments, its employees or their process, should eventually make a significant impact on the organisational performance. According to Armstrong and Baron (2004), performance management establishes a shared understanding of what should be achieved and a method that can lead and develop individuals which will make certain that it is achieved. They also believe that such management is associated with every activity within the organisation that is set within the context of their human resource strategies, style, culture, and communication system. Moreover, the nature of their strategy is primarily based on the framework of the organisation and can differ from one organisation to the other (Henri 2004). Discussion Performance Management Achieving organisational goals require a number of ongoing activities and processes such as the recognition of such desired outcomes, establishing ways on how to measure development toward such outcomes, exchanging constant feedback among organisational units and employees, regularly reviewing growth and progress, and adding emphasis on activities that may significantly contribute to the organisation’s improvement (Armstrong and Baron 2004). Performance management for operations has clearly provided a number of benefits to organisations who have effectively implemented a useful management system within all units of the organisation. A common mistaken belief among supervisors and managers is that activities and behaviours are similar to results (Cunneen 2006). Therefore, an employee who may seem very busy may not be contributing at all toward the achievement of organisational goals. Furthermore, performance management is used to recognize organisational goals, the necessary results for the achievement of these goals and the means of acquiring such goals. This series of measurements is carefully analyzed to make sure that these are aligned with the overall results of the organisation coming from all units and departments. Swanson (1999) also suggests that an effective performance management should make use of a systems-based approach while being able to look at motivating factors and its outcomes. Moreover, performance management produces valuable measurements that can be applied in various instances such as setting standards to compare an organisation’s best practices with that of other competitors, providing a reliable basis for comparison in the course of implementing internal changes, as well as indicating results when the organisation makes effort for their improvement including employee training and management development (Neely 2002). Performance management supports constant communication, feedback and interaction within all members and departments of an organisation; therefore, providing clear and transparent ideas and expectations on planning and direction. This will then enhance the effectiveness of organisational operations because all goals and outcomes are closely aligned. Consequently, it will promote a system that will give emphasis on the relationships as well as the exchanges between subsystems including departments and their employees. Additionally, it helps ensure a fair treatment towards employees based on their performance (Neely 2002). However, there have been typical concerns regarding performance management as it may seem extremely difficult and challenging to measure something as complex and wide-ranging as an individual’s performance. People have pointed out that present organisations are constantly changing, thus, measures and outcomes quickly become outdated (Suff 2009). Nonetheless, performance management should be strategic and integrated which means that it should cover wider issues along with long-term goals, as well as effectively link the different aspects and departments of the organisation (Bacal 1999). Performance management should be able to foster continuous development within the organisation, especially among employees and teams, to attain performance improvement and organisational effectiveness. Furthermore, when behaviour is properly managed, it will ensure that employees are motivated to act and behave in a way that encourages better working relationships. Armstrong and Baron (2004) also lay emphasis on better management for managers and supervisors, to make sure that the units and employees they manage have a clear understanding of what is expected from their performance, that they possess the level of competence necessary for delivery of such expectations, and that they are have the opportunity for discussing and contributing to the individual and team objectives. More importantly, performance management can ensure that managers themselves will become aware of the impact and effects of their behaviour on the individuals that they manage. Therefore, performance management focuses on establishing a culture wherein both individuals and groups are responsible for the continual improvement of business activities and processes as well as their own behaviours, skills, and contributions. When expectations are shared, managers can make it clear as to what they expect individuals and teams to do; this way, both individuals and teams are capable of communicating their expectations as to how they should be managed as well as what they need in order for them to accomplish their jobs (Houldsworth and Jirasinghe 2006). Moreover, it follows that performance management also focuses on organisational interrelationships as well as in enhancing the quality of relationships such as that of between managers and individuals, managers and teams, and so on. More importantly, such management should apply not just to managers but to all employees as well because it takes into account every part of the organisation and should spread through every aspect of operating and running an organisation (Houldsworth and Jirasinghe 2006). Compass Group Serving tens of thousands of international clients, the Compass Group is a world-class provider of food and other support services. From schools and universities to offices and hospitals, this innovative company provides a wide selection of high quality services in order to meet and satisfy the people’s needs on a regular basis. Regardless of locations, their demand for choice, quality and value is equally similar and sensitive as one would find on a high street. Due to their focus on customers, the company is driven to create development and innovation in their offers and services for them to attract more people to their branches on a daily basis. The Compass Group is a specialized service provider that aims to meet and satisfy individual tastes and preferences, meet high safety and environmental standards, improve quality and reduce costs, take advantage of innovations and new global practices, as well as provide access to the most current food concepts and brands there is. To simply put it, their primary goal of providing optimum service to clients and customers along with their productive use of resources and a high level of competence has allowed other organisations to rely on them and recognize their great value. However, despite such satisfactory outcomes on customer focus and attention, it has been reported that there is a growing concern over human resource management issues within the Compass organisation particularly in the relationship between the operational performance manager (OPM) and the unit managers (UM) that is currently under his supervision. Reports have shown that there is a lack of planning and direction for management and that its structure has been poorly established. Furthermore, the inability of the organisation to cope with new changes and development has caused issues among implementing the correct measures. Additionally, the unstable relationship as well as the absence of communication and interaction between the OPM and the UM has generated unclear expectations from each side and has consequently produced undesirable outcomes such as inadequate training for the unit managers, doubt and distrust towards the general management as well as a low level of competence, morale and joint effort. Therefore it has been shown that there is no stable leadership as well as full support for the unit managers which has resulted into a low level of performance from both the OPM and the UM themselves. When such negative results are experienced, it is more likely that there will be a significant reduction in their success rate and level of achievement (Suff 2009). Although the Compass Group has adopted the most current international standards and practices and incorporate these into their business operations, there will not be a significant improvement in their performance once performance management, which mediates the relationship between the OPM and the UM, is not effectively implemented. Because performance management is widely extensive, it needs a strong structure for it to be supported (Neely 2002). A framework should be provided to help employees function and operate, and assist them in helping others to work as well (Dresner 2007). However, it should not be an inflexible and rigid system; rather, there has to be a sensible and practical level of flexibility that can provide employees with freedom and preference to effectively function and operate (Paladino, 2007). In order to build a strong and strategic bond between all business units within an organisation, certain organisational goals must first be recognized and understood by each member for them to have mutual desired outcomes as well as similar expectations out of the performance of each other (Halachmi and Bouckaert 1994). When every employee and member has agreed on performance and development, it will eventually lead to the planning between employees and their managers, with constant monitoring and communication to facilitate development and enhance areas that are in need of further improvement (Armstrong, 2005). Aside from a well-structured system, the management of Compass Group must be able to provide adequate training programs and resources for all members of the organisation for each department and employee to become capable of contributing to the attainment of organisational goals and objectives. Furthermore, employee development has become the main emphasis of most organisations in improving their overall organisational performance which, in turn, entails a complete understanding of the organisation’s business strategies as well as individual learning (Vansina, 1999). For example, between managers and the units that they facilitate, performance reviews and appraisals can be considered as learning events wherein employees are motivated to think of how or in which ways they can foster their growth and development. An increased emphasis on the management of skills and knowledge may also imply that organisations are implementing changes in performance management to align it with the needs of recognizing, raising and retaining skills and capabilities (Cunneen 2006). Development programs, for example, seek to cultivate and encourage leadership skills. On the other hand, too much emphasis on skill management may cause negative outcomes to the overall development needs as there is a need for every effort to guarantee that development within an organisation is comprehensive and inclusive of all members, can be easily reached and understood, and should be focused on developing the capability of the organisation as a whole (Bowman and Helfat 2001). There is a downside to performance management, however, as performance management systems, which have been expected to mediate the relationship between managers and their units, are merely based on the notion that organisational success is the outcome of putting together all individual outputs from each team and each employee. While there came a time that this was effective and applicable, current studies show that an organisation’s success is a result of the interaction among the members of such organisation, and not the simple adding together of their results. To simply put it, the whole outcome is not merely a sum of all its parts, but in a well controlled and managed workplace the parts interact with each other to create the success for the organisation (St. John and Harrison, 1999). Furthermore, performance management suggests that if an organisation is focused on results, they have a greater possibility of achieving success. The main problem is that a single focus on results usually neglects and overlooks other issues within the organisation and its systems which have to be addressed and prepared for in order for the desired results to come about. The belief is that somehow, when one is clear about such results, an effective system will immediately emerge to bring about those results, or that leadership will become effective. While results are very important, the thorough study and analysis of the necessary process for achieving desired results may be far more important. Lorrange (1993) states that research has shown that companies in North America that focused more on results and output lost their competency and advantage in the market place and one reason for this is that these organisations have lost their ability to provide the conditions necessary for satisfactory output. Currently, there has been an increased understanding of the fact that problems which are associated with an organisation’s output are often related to the weak and inadequate management of systems, or the way that work is accomplished, rather than the problems with the employees (St. John and Harrison 1999). In short, the organisations create barriers and difficulties for their members to accomplish their work. Performance management involves all members of the organisation, from the managers to all the departments, teams, and employees that they supervise, to be drawn in making decisions and setting goals and is in turn, motivating for most employees (Libby 1999). Unfortunately, though, studies suggest that this conclusion may seem to be imbalanced and unreasonable. In the study of Tosi, Rizzo and Carrol (1986), results have shown that participation from the various units of an organisation did not necessarily lead to positive outcomes such as a higher level of success in goal attainment or a more favorable attitude towards management. It may, therefore, be suggested that in some cases, employee involvement can become positive while it may not in other situations. With adequate research, the mere act of allowing employees to become involved in setting objectives may not be sufficient as they remain uninvolved in determining organisational goals and objectives that will set their personal objectives as well (Mosimann and Dussualt 2001). For example, management normally sets the overall goals for their organisation, and then individual employees are given a certain amount of control of what they can and will do to personally achieve such goals. If these overall goals do not make sense to the employees, management is basically offering a choice of doing one ridiculous thing after another. Additionally, it has been assumed that with performance management, managers can evaluate one’s performance and at the same time provide support and assistance in order to enhance performance (Armstrong 2006). This may be possible, but is highly improbable that a manager can perform both of these functions. It might be possible if there is a high level of trust that exists between a manager and the employees; however, such trust is hard to establish and maintain. The reason for this is that employees are seldom open about their ineffectiveness and lack of skills in a particular area especially when it is likely that their manager will record such incompetence for the future generations to come as well as use this information to make certain decisions regarding the future of these employees. Without the adequate information from the employees, managers are faced with a difficulty of assisting and coaching them for improvement (Armstrong 2006). There is a need to restate that performance management may appear to be a logical and rational approach in achieving organisational success. The main problem is that it is merely based on beliefs and suggestions that still lack thorough study and analysis even at present times. Odiorne (1968) describes a number of limitations of using performance management which includes the inability to completely identify potential as the system only deals with the present job performance, the assumption that a manager and its employees can together create suitable standards for the organisation’s success as well as the lack of provision for methods in achieving desired outcomes. Though it is often viewed as a permanent solution for organisational success and effectiveness between the management and its various departments and units, performance management may cause problems and difficulties for an organisation (Baron and Greenberg 2008). Generally, it conveys to the members of an organisation as to how work should be performed and accomplished, and, by chance, often communicates organisational values and culture. More specifically, performance management systems can encourage a lack of shared responsibility for the attainment of organisational goals, promote competition instead of cooperation among employees, and slow down the development of an effective joint effort and teamwork. Performance management aims to give power to each member of the organisation, allow involvement and participation as well as increase the value and significance of work. However, most often these desired results do not occur, therefore resulting to a reduced level of the managers’ reliability and their willingness to believe that they have the ability to lead and manage their organisation (Hatch 2006). The truth in most work settings is that managers have the ultimate power in making decisions that are related to their work as this is the normal way of setting up organisations (Gutierrez 1995). The most favorable performance management systems often encourage employees to become involved in making decisions which involve their standards and objectives while most managers make the most of their efforts to utilize this input. On the other hand, despite of this control that is made available for the employees, most members of the organisation are aware that in the end, their managers will create the final assessment. It is clear that there are more than a few problems that come with implementing performance management in an organisation. Managers play a large role in attaining organisational success and an organisation can always find a manager that has superior leadership and social skills (Gillen 2007). It is important to remember that good managers can make at least almost anything work. In most cases, organisations succeed due to competent managers and not because of any traditional system. Even without a performance management system, an organisation can achieve incredible success as long as they have included proficient managers who are highly capable of facilitating their departments and units along all their employees and business operations. Reflective Account Many of today’s large organisations and corporations are diversified and branched out in various units and departments. Therefore, the decisions regarding the management and effectiveness of these organisational groups are of great importance (Michel and Hambrick 1992). In many of these diversified organisations, there is a considerable variety on the strategies that are used among their business units. This variety, therefore, requires these organisations to modify and adjust their plans and processes in order to meet the needs of individual divisions and business units (Chandler 1991). In the reported circumstances of the Compass Group, it has been stated that there is an absence of structure and planning in the management among various business units as well as a lack of constant communication and interaction between their operational performance manager and unit managers. Moreover, inadequate training and a low level of competency among newly appointed unit managers were evident while constant change within the organisation and its operations added more stress and pressure to the organisation, disabling them to effectively establish their management system. The Compass Group is an international company that is diversified with its various business units and departments. Due to this fact, this organisation requires a well-established type of planning as well as effective control and management systems (O’ Donnell 2000). However, Goold and Campbell (1997) assert that business units along with the processes and operations that go with such departments may bring about a number of problems such as a low level of morale and trust as well as a lack of commitment and dedication to the organisation. Dooms and Van Oijen (2005) argue that these concerns regarding business units and their relationship with the management have been overlooked in most studies and do not receive the adequate attention that is necessary in mediating the relation between a performance manager and the unit managers under his control and supervision. There is a need for these corporate performance managers to adapt their style, control and behaviour in order to meet the needs of not just their unit managers but of the employees under each unit as well. In the case of the Compass Group management, they may not have been capable of establishing a definite management system among their business units due to a great possibility that these unit managers have not yet identified with the goals, objectives and desired outcomes of the organisation, especially those who have been newly appointed. In this situation comes the need of the proper orientation and training for such individuals to become accustomed with the policies and principles of the organisation as well as to further enhance their level of competency. In this way, a satisfactory performance can be expected in these unit managers regardless of the length of time they have been with the company (Storey 1995). Furthermore, quality individual input can be expected from each of these business units. Another concern is the lack of communication between the management and the various business unit managers within the Compass Group. Communication has always been one of the most primary functions of organisational management and is extremely necessary for the success of any organisation (Saunders 1995). An effective exchange of information and decisions between a performance manager and the various unit managers will significantly raise the performance level of all as each side is completely aware of what is expected from them. In short, managers should be capable of making it clear to the other members of the organisation about what should be done, how well they have all been performing, and the new steps to be taken for further growth and development. Majority of management problems are brought about by the lack or absence of effective communication and the chances of misunderstanding can very well be reduced using a proper communication system (Saunders 1995). Additionally, allowing unit managers and their unit members to become involved in the recognition of organisational objectives as well as in decision making can both motivate such employees to improve morale as well as increase productivity. Such principles of constant communication and feedback between organisational units along with employee involvement and adequate training have been incorporated into the traditional performance management system (Dresner 2007). Such performance management has been known to yield positive and favorable results such as a high level of competence among employees, increased production rate, improvement in communication and evaluation as well as a strong management system. With these outcomes, an effective performance management within the Compass Group can become a possible solution to address all concerns and difficulties between their operational performance manager and unit managers. On the other hand, though, studies have shown how unlikely it is for an organisation to achieve all these results by using just one system (Hatch 2006). For example, the production of input from various business units will not simply add up to success; rather, a constant and active interaction among the members of the organisation will help in the achievement of such goals. Also, when organisations allow their employees to become involved when decisions are made, it will not guarantee that these company members will have the final say for such decisions as the power still remains with their managers. Managers play a significantly large role in the success of an organisation particularly on how they run things as well as how they handle their employees (Losey and Ulrich 2005). In this time of constant change, managers and supervisors can be considered as either the greatest helper or the biggest difficulty for an organisation and its units. Managers are the ones who have the closest relationship with the employees who must take in the new behaviours and processes associated with business operations. In 2009 surveys, results have shown that from all the functions that they should be capable of accomplishing, managers had the hardest time of training and preparing their employees to proficiently attain organisational goals (Suff 2009), similar to one of the primary issues of the Compass Group. Most of the time, even great managers have a hard time coaching and assisting their employees because the managers themselves were not provided with the adequate training and preparation to assume a “coach” role. Even without a performance management system, any organisation can pave the way to success when their managers are adequately trained, completely prepared, and highly proficient in supervising and facilitating all organisational departments, units, employees and operations (Schuler and Jackson 1999). References Armstrong, M 2006, A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (10th ed.), Kogan Page, London. Armstrong, M & Baron, A 2004, Managing performance: performance management in action, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Bacal, R 1999, Performance management, McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Baron, R & Greenberg, J 2008, Behaviour in organisations, Pearson Education Inc., New Jersey. Bowman, EH & Helfat, CE 2001, ‘Does corporate strategy matter?’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 22, pp. 1-23. Cunneen, P 2006, ‘How to improve performance management’, People Management, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 42-43. Dooms, E & Van Oijen, A 2005, Control differentiation and performance of business units, Schmalenbach Business Review, vol. 57, pp. 320-331. Dresner, H 2007, The performance management revolution, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. Gillen, T 2007, Performance management and appraisal, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Gutierrez, LH 1995, ‘Transformations of the HR function’, International Journal of Manpower, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 25-39. Halachmi, A & Bouckaert, G 1994, Performance measurement, organisational technology and organisational design, Work Study, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 19-25. Hatch, MJ 2006, Organisation theory: modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspective (2nd Ed.), Oxford University Press. Henri, JF 2004, Performance measurement and organisational effectiveness: bridging the gap, Managerial Finance, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 93-123. Houldsworth, E & Jirasinghe, D 2006, Managing and measuring employee performance, Kogan Page, London. Libby, T 1999, The influence of voice and explanation of performance, Accounting, Organisations and Society, vol. 24, pp. 125-137. Lorrange, P 1993, Strategic planning and control: issues in the strategy process, Blackwell, Oxford. Losey, M & Ulrich, S 2005, The future of human resource management, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. Mosimann, RP & Dussault, M 2007, The Performance Manager, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Neely, A 2002, Business performance measurement: theory and practice, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. O’ Donnell, S 2000, Managing international subsidiaries, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 21, pp. 525-548. Paladino, B 2007, Five key principles of corporate performance management, John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey. Saunders, A 1995, ‘Vision only works if communicated (managing organisational change)’, People Management, vol. 1, no. 25, pp. 28-30. Schuler, R & Jackson, S 1999, Strategic human resource management, Blackwell, Oxford. St. John, C & Harrison, J 1999, Organisational synergy and coordination, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 20, pp. 129-145. Storey, J 1995, Human resource management: a critical text, Routeledge, London. Suff, R 2009, Managing underperformance; the 2009 IRS survey, IRS Employment Review, no. 915, p. 10. Tosi, H, Rizzo, J, & Carrol, S 1986, Managing organisational behaviour, Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA. Vansina, L1999, ‘Leadership in strategic business unit management’, Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 87-108, Read More