Challenges Facing the Process of Implementing Performance Management Systems - Coursework Example

MANAGING PEOPLE PERFOMANCE Name Course Tutor Date Introduction Organizations have been on the run to invest widely in Performance management systems without clearly understanding the value of PMS. As such, most organizations have been in a dilemma on the expected results versus the investments they have made; there is lack of clarity on the expected outcomes (Pulakos, 2009). However, despite these, the need for PMS has risen remarkably in the last decade. This is due to the fact that researchers, scholars and practitioners as well as policy makers have realized that PMS actually improves the performance and the overall value of any given organization. Regrettably, the implementation of PMS in organizations has not been a walk on the park as the failure rate of PMS implementation in organization has risen in percentage (Pulakos, 2009). The result of this has been the rejection of this powerful management tool by most organizations. Pulakos (2009) notes that without proper research and emancipation on how to mitigate them, PMS may be a method that is strong but lack applicability due to the fear of the unknown. The aim of this paper is to explore the challenges facing the process of implementing PMS and also look into what the managers and the HR practitioners can do so as to improve performance in organizations. Performance Management systems Performance management system refers to the process of performance planning or goal setting, performance monitoring and coaching, evaluation of individual performance with reference to organizational goals, employee feedback, rewarding of individuals based on their achievements of the set performance standards and goals as well as relevant competencies, and having a work out plan for the development of an individual (Sahu, 2007). To better understand the concept of PMS it is essential to have an insight of some of its tenets; performance and performance appraisal. Sahu (2007) opines that performance can be defined as the degree of accomplishment of a given task making an individual’s job. Performance appraisal on the other hand is a qualitative and quantitative method of evaluating the employees’ behavior at the workplace (Ossadnik et al, 2013). A well established PMS gives a structured framework that is used to plan, monitor, evaluate and recognize performance (Sahu, 2007). Issues and Challenges in Implementing Performance Management Systems There is a plethora of issues and challenges that make the implementation of PMS to be hindered. First off, the management itself may be reluctant to implement PMS (De Waal & Counet, 2009). This is mainly caused by time constraints and work pressures encountered by the managers in their daily work environments (Boipono et al, 2014). This consumes too much time of the managers such that much time is spent on deliberation of short term goals and organizational problem. This in turn slows the development and implementation of PMS. Secondly, the process of implementing PMS is time consuming and requires a lot of efforts (De Waal & Counet, 2009). The management of the organization might spend more time than budgeted for in the implementation process. As a result the members of the organization will be discouraged due to lack of short term outcomes (Cheng et al, 2007). When this is the case, the members will only spend little of their time and energy in implementing PMS, hindering the whole process that may eventually halt. Thirdly, the design of the PMS itself may be wrong. This mainly occurs when there is lack of integration between the PMS and the Human Resource management Systems (HRMS) as well as with the strategic plan of the organization and organizational culture. Other instances that can result in wrong design are when the PMS is a duplicate of that of another organization even if from the same industry (Cheng et al, 2007). Poor consultations with the stakeholders also results into this making the system to lack place and fairness in the organization (Cheng et al, 2007). As a result, the implementation process is likely to have hurdles. The fourth challenge is insufficient resources in place for the implementation process (Machingamba et al, 2013). This mainly affects the starting organizations since freeing up the resources for the implementation process would be risking the organizational position at that moment (Boipono et al, 2014). As a result most PMS implementations affected in this manner will have to be postpones or delayed. The other challenge is the phase of stability of the organization (Boipono et al, 2014). When the organization in question is in the unstable phase, it is so obvious that the implementation process will be halted or delayed to respond to the status quo (Cheng et al, 2007). Such unstable phases includes when the organization is too busy with reorganizations, acquisitions, mergers, downsizing, or it has fiscal problems (De Waal & Counet, 2009). These issues are pertinent and pin the management to solve them prior to implementing the PMS. The process of PMS implementation may also be hindered by the commitment of the leadership or management (Boipono et al, 2014). When the management lacks commitment, the rest of the organization will also hold little value to working with the new system and thus resistance. The leaders are important in driving the PMS through setting strategic directions as well as monitoring the performance across the organization (Ossadnik et al, 2013). When there is lack of commitment the cycle of PMS is at doom and it can crumble any time (Boipono et al, 2014). A good example is where the management and so the employees, see the new system as a financial control tool (Machingamba et al, 2013). This causes resistance of the PMS. On the same note, the management may ignore change management in the performance management system implementation process (De Waal & Counet, 2009). This happens when there lacks proper communication between the management and the rest of the organization as well as lack of proper implementation plans (Boipono et al, 2014). The organizational members may lack positive attitude towards the PMS thus hampering the implementation process. The success of implementation of the PMS also lies with the staff and middle management. A buy-in of the two is pertinent for the success of PMS’s acceptance in the organization (De Waal & Counet, 2009). If their support is lacking than the PMS implementation process is as good as nothing in the organization. PMS has to be supported by the current IT infrastructure in the organization for smooth implementation. A challenge sets in when this lacks since the corroboration of facts and data between the two would consume time and resources (Ossadnik et al, 2013). As the major aim of any organization is to reduce costs, the organizations may fail to implement PMS on this basis. The current IT infrastructure needs to support PMS though automated collection, processing and reporting Key Performance Indicator’s data. Another challenge for the implementation process may be a wrong management style for the organization (Ossadnik et al, 2013). Resistance may increase if the management is using this tool as a negative punitive measure; settling scores and punishing people (Ossadnik et al, 2013). This wrong goal by the management will make the system to be disliked and consequently hinder the implementation process. Lack of lucid strategic plans by the organization’s management could also hinder the implementation process (Miah & Hossan, 2012). This happens especially when there is conflict of interest between the strategy and objectives of the organization. The critical success factors and Key Performance Indicators in line with the PMS may be masked in this case (Boipono et al, 2014). This arguably results in low implementation and thus use of PMS. There may also be lack of knowledge and skills on PMS (Miah & Hossan, 2012). The organizational members are likely to resist its implementation. This occurs due to lack of proper training of the employees (Miah & Hossan, 2012). Other factors that affect the implementation of PMS depend on the scope of the KPIs. Where the KPIs are not linked to the responsibilities of various individuals, teams and departments, the process of implementation is hindered (Bourne et al, 2002). This is because of lack of relevance of the results of the indicators causing the members to shy off from PMS. When the relevant KPIs are not defined adequately the process is again affected (Miah & Hossan, 2012). There may also be too many KPIs draw in confusion causing an overload of information thus little or no time to adequately achieve each indicator (Bourne et al, 2002). On the same note, the organization implementing PMS may be measuring wrong KPIs thus rendering the implementation of PMS irrelevant (Bourne et al, 2002). Lastly, when the organization that is planning to implement PMS lacks performance management culture the PMS will not make any sense (Machingamba et al, 2013). What Managers and Human Resource Practitioners Need to Do in Facilitating Performance Improvement There are various interventions the managers and other human resource practitioners can take in order to facilitate performance improvement. Van et al (2012) divides them into three subcategories. The first one is talent management that focuses on the core business functions of the employee such as through staffing, employee development, health and wellness, retirement planning, compensation and benefits, employee retention and labor relations (Van et al, 2012). Secondly, individual growth that focuses on the need to encourage the employee to perform better. This is facilitated through performance management, motivation systems, KPIs, performance appraisal and 360 degree feedback as well as competency testing (Van et al, 2012). Lastly, organizational growth that mainly deals with the need of the organization to have a long-term success. This is ensured through succession planning, leadership, management and executive development, and supervisory development (Van et al, 2012). Managers and HR practitioners have the role of utilizing their competency in developing strategic partnerships to enhance talent management (Van et al, 2012). They should do this through job description, job analysis, recruiting qualified applicants, interviewing and selecting candidates. The manager ensures that there is a right pool of resources as well skills for the given job in the organization (Van et al, 2012). Another way in which they could facilitate in performance improvement is through employee development and training. This allows for a learning curve in the organization as learning is directly proportional to performance improvement. The managers can as well ensure there are wellness programs for the employees. These are in part of the benefit packages an employee receives. The managers should therefore plan, design and develop as well as monitor the health and wellness programmes in an organization (Storey et al, 2009). They should also ensure that the employee is educated on health matters and is insured. The managers and HR practitioners should also monitor the KPIs like absenteeism, turnover and medical expenses among others (Rothwell et al, 2012). A good motivation system should also be instituted in the organization (Rothwell et al, 2012). This will not only boost the morale of workers but also improve performance. They should also in consultations with the employees and supervisors adopt performance appraisal systems. In addition all the employees must be trained on the appraisal methods being used. There should also be the development of 360-degrees appraisal based on the outcomes of the worker (Rothwell et al, 2012). Following this should be coaching and mentoring experiences. The managers and HR practitioners should regularly conduct competencies testing so as to evaluate the suitability of the employee in a given job position (Storey et al, 2009). Where there is a discrepancy they should swap the workers (Van et al, 2012). These are just but a few ways in which managers and HR practitioners could be beneficial in facilitating performance improvement (Rothwell et al, 2012). However, as noted there are three subcategories of the intervention and these are what should be followed up by the managers and HR practitioners for performance improvement (Storey et al, 2009). Conclusion There are myriad of factors that affect the implementation of PMS as identified in the paper. Some of the factors arise from the organization itself while some from its management and the organization members. It is worth noting that the failure rate of PMS due to the aforementioned challenges has been the major reason as to why most organizations are still reluctant to adopt PMS which in part also brings in performance improvement. It is therefore necessary that more light be shed on how the above identified problems can be solved to enhance the implementation of this powerful management tool. There are various ways that the managers and HR practitioners can facilitate performance improvement. They fall under the umbrella of three interventions each with its own tenets. The three are identified as talent management, individual growth and organizational growth. It is therefore necessary that HR practitioners and managers be well versed with the knowledge on how to optimize the methods outlined in the paper to facilitate performance improvement. Bibliography Bourne, M., Neely, A., Platts, K., & Mills, J. 2002, “The success and failure of performance measurement initiatives Perceptions of participating managers”. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(11), 1288-1310. Boipono, M., Goistone, T., & MOGADIME, R., 2014, “Implementation of Performance Management System (PMS) in Schools: Success Factors”. International Journal of Research in Applied, Natural and Social Sciences (IMPACT: IJRANSS), 2(5), 189-194. Cheng, M., Dainty, A., & Moore, D. 2007, “Implementing a new performance management system within a project-based organization: A case study”. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 56(1), 60-75. De Waal, A. A., & Counet, H. 2009, “Lessons learned from performance management systems implementations”. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Miah, K., & Hossan, C. G. 2012, “Performance Management Systems in the UK Retail Industry: A Case Study”. Far East Journal of Psychology and Business, 7(3), 13-25. Ossadnik, W., Kaspar, R. H., & Schinke, S. M. 2013, “Constructing a Tailor-made Performance Management System Supported by Knowledge Elicitation Tools and Dynamic Modeling”. International Journal of Business Research and Management (IJBRM), 4(4), 75-98. Pulakos, E. D. 2009, “Performance management: A new approach for driving business results”. Chichester, West Susssex: Wiley-Blackwell. Rothwell, W. J., Hohne, C. K., & King, S. B. 2012, “Human performance improvement: Building practitioner competence”. Houston: Gulf. Machingamba, S., Maphosa, C., Ndofirepi, A., Mutekwe, E., & Wadesango, N. 2013,“Perceived Challenges of Implementing the Performance Management System in Zimbabwe”. J Soc Sci, 35(3), 263-271. Sahu, R. K. 2007, “Performance management system”. New Delhi: Excel Books. Storey, J., Wright, P. M., & Ulrich, D. 2009. “The concise companion to strategic human resource management”. New York, NY: Routledge. Van, T. D., Moseley, J. L., Dessinger, J. C., Van, T. D., & Van, T. D. 2012, “Fundamentals of performance improvement: Optimizing results through people, process, and organizations”. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer, a Wiley imprint. Read More