Team Management, Job Design and Rewards within Performance Management - Coursework Example

Performance Management Name Institution Tutor Date Introduction Employee performance is a significant concern for most managers as a way of attaining organisational objectives (Boachie-Mensah & Dogbe 2011). Team working, job design and provision of rewards and remuneration are among the basic strategies adopted in seeking performance (Aguinis 2005). This is because teams enable better quality through collaborative working and job satisfaction due to their social component (McCallin & McCallin 2009). Job design involves the rearrangement of work to eliminate employee alienation and job dissatisfaction attributed to mechanistic or repetitive tasks (Daft et al. 2010). Rewards and remuneration on their part inspire performance by promising income or benefits (Armstrong & Murlis 2007). Although each of the strategies has a significant role in determining performance, there is need for their closer assessment. This paper critically discusses team management, job design and rewards within performance management, arguing that they help the process, but only if well implemented. Teamwork is among the facilitators of motivation, which according to Boachie-Mensah & Dogbe (2011) is the psychological determinant of employee effort in tasks. According to Sohmen (2013), a team is a group comprising of individuals who are united as they seek a common goal or mission, and they are integral in organisations thereby creating the need to incorporate them in performance delivery, and for Tarricone & Luca (2002), this involves making ordinary people to work towards the extraordinary results. Chien et al. (2012) confirm that change efforts, for instance in Continuous Quality Improvement and Total Quality Management report the relationship between teamwork and organizational performance. However, Boachie-Mensah & Dogbe (2011) explain that successful team-working requires a synergy between all involved, and an environment in which they will willingly participate in what needs to be done and remain flexible so as to adapt it. According to Chien et al. (2012), feedback and open communication will further ensure that the needs and concerns of each member are identified and addressed, while they are also as willing as possible to receive and give constructive criticism. Effective leadership is necessary in ensuring productive team-working (Sohmen 2013). An empowering leadership is the best for ensuring maximum teamwork outcomes, and according to Yun et al. (2007), this refers to self-influence of members rather than the typical top-down, external models of leadership. Adoption of teamwork is capable of expanding individual output through collaboration. Furthermore, it provides a way of maximizing man-power utilization hence increasing individual performance. According to Parker (2013), production is generally improved as members hold one another accountable for outcomes and in the process encourage efficiency in work. Through individual goals within the teams, there is production of friendly competition that results in higher motivational levels. Mensah (2013) explains that quality is improved because employees tend to become more committed towards achievement of overall goals. Parker (2013) argues that teamwork is also likely to ensure more job satisfaction as it encourages participation, therefore creative fulfillment is achieved and self-esteem is boosted. Participation boosts morale, leading to more loyalty. Although there are so many positive results associated with teamwork, there could be serious shortcomings. First is that it might expose the workplace to unnecessary intra-team conflicts. Tarricone & Luca (2002) explain that work teams can cause conflicts because they involve generation of a wider variety of ideas hence debate and disagreements, tensions and frustrations. When teams consider themselves to be competing against each other, they are also likely to get into conflict. In addition, while a team has the ability of maximizing individual potential, its improper application can still lead to some people feeling unimportant, especially when domineered by others. It is however worth noting that while teams can raise conflict, this can be dealt with especially if management has good mechanisms for quick conflict resolution. Such conflicts can possibly be dealt with if management for instance manages to identify the best ways of rewarding teamwork and simultaneously enabling cooperation between teams. Team-working strategies need to be encouraged and the environment made in a way that every individual employee is satisfied with what he does and can effectively cooperate with the rest, as this will ensure maximization of potential hence the organisation’s productivity. Job design on its part involves the identification of administrative practices to guide what each employee does, the time to be taken in doing their job, where they will be working, the location of the task and whenever possible, giving them a chance to choose what they want to do (Mensah 2013). It may be involve job enlargement, where jobs are changed so that they incorporate more or different tasks, with the objective being to make the job more interesting, and if possible add some responsibility. It may also take the form of job rotation, where the employee is moved from one task to another, or job enrichment where an employee will be allowed to take up greater independence, responsibilities and accountability (Ali & Zia-ur-Rehman 2014). To ensure effective design, first there is need to assess the existing work practices. Management should determine whether job design is required or feasible, through discussions with supervisors and employees. Task analyses should afterwards be conducted to establish the exact nature of the tasks and their weakness then the actual job design is implemented. Work methods are identified alongside training requirements, required equipment, rest schedules and the necessary changes to be made. This is followed by a gradual implementation process, which may start as a pilot project or as a scaled down organization-wide activity. An adjustment period has to be provided for so that the changes can be fully accepted, then the design will be reevaluated periodically, and adjustments made if required (Daft et al. 2010). When a job is well-designed, it is likely to lead to better employee engagement and well-being. It influences the ways in which employees will perceive their jobs hence perform (Truss et al. 2013).There is the integration of job content or responsibilities thereby it assists in attraction of the best candidates for the job. Its main motivational feature is that it makes jobs more specialized and interesting, and also creation of a sense of achievement and therefore high esteem among employees. According to Mensah (2013), it helps to eliminate stress, which usually impacts negatively on employee job satisfaction, motivation and productivity. Daft et al. (2010) add that it enables proper job adjustments through reducing the amount of energy applied in tasks, and facilitates increase in employee output because it ensures appropriate job feedback. Each employee is given the option of varying a task depending on his or her circumstances, habits or social needs at the workplace, as a result of which levels of morale and therefore performance are increased. Ali & Zia-ur-Rehman (2014) add that raised productivity is also because of non-monetary rewards, for instance the sense of achievement hence satisfaction arising from more responsibilities and challenges provided. While job design is a progressive activity in performance management, it definitely has the shortcoming that its benefits are not truly generalisable. For instance, there may not be adequate training upon job enrichment hence employees may not be able to get adequate skills. There is also the increase in workload, so that while for some employees it will be easy to adjust quickly, for others it might initially be difficult, leading to frustration. Job rotation may on its part give rise to challenges. For instance, there are some employees who need to deal with challenging tasks, and they may end up frustrated because shifts to new positions are often horizontal, hence exposure to several jobs that are of the same nature. The shifting might also interrupt the organisation’s work routine, and even increase costs as workers are moved just when they have become used and therefore productive in current positions. Employees that desire responsibility within a given specialty might also end up demotivated. Rewards and Remuneration have a significant role to play in performance. Horvathova et al. (2012) explain that while money may not be the only or primary motivator for all employees, it is a significantly important determinant in the motivation levels of a majority of people. Financial incentives typically seek to result in direct motivation, so that employees are told ways in which they can make more money in future if their performance is good. A financial reward acts as an indirect motivator because it offers a tangible measure of achievement recognition, provided the employee expects that whatever is done will later produce a positive outcome in line with the Expectancy Theory. A reward can either be prospective, where the employee is assured of more pay basing on the current belief that he has attained a competency level that is likely to lead to better performance in future, or retrospective, where pay is based on already documented achievements. Pay plans often take two forms. They may be traditional, where rewards are based on job descriptions, with established pay ranges, position and seniority-oriented structures that are not linked to one’s performance, and not linked to performance (Aguinis 2005). They may also be contingent, where the pay scheme offers amounts above the base rate, depending on competency, skill, contribution or performance of the employees. Contingent pay in this regard appears best in ensuring maximization of individual performance because according to Horvathova et al. (2012), a good remuneration system can differentiate between non-performers and performers, and meanwhile also motivate a growth in performance. According to Boachie-Mensah & Dogbe (2011), the linking of pay to employee performance has for long been sought by employers, as there is a close link between Performance Related Pay (PRP) and the attraction of workers who have greater ability while inducing others to work harder. A number of arguments may therefore be presented in support of contingent pay. First is that it is a reflection of justice. A person who contributes more towards organisational success needs to earn more, hence the tangible rewards. Giving of such pay is also useful as it enables the attraction and retention of the best quality of employees, while focusing the peoples’ attention on values and results that are performance enhancing hence motivating them towards adopting them (Horvathova et al. 2012). Armstrong & Murlis (2007) observe that with contingent pay, it is possible to align costs with revenues in the most economically sound way, so that for instance whenever there are economic downturns, there is no need for dysfunctional downsizing. The success of contingent pay will depend on the effectiveness of its application as a strategy. According to Horvathova et al. (2012), this will need to have two main characteristics; contribution to the success of the organisation and having a good fit with the organisation’s context. Management generally has to ensure that it is integrated well into the overall organisational structure, and human resource strategy. A pay plan will be best implemented through first assessing the readiness of the organisation for it, followed by selection of the best contingent pay then having it aligned to strategic goals. It will then be communicated to line managers who will in turn communicate it to the employees that will help refine the scheme and jointly decide how it will work. It will further have to be evaluated for effectiveness after it has been implemented. The nature of pay as a performance determinant here however raises a number of concerns. First is on the extent to which such pay motivates. This is because usually, according to Mensah (2013), the amount provided is small, so that its incentive capability is questionable. Money is also not automatically motivational to people, and will often not motivate everyone equally. Further, it has the ability of motivating some while demotivating those who fail to get it, which is dangerous because those who fail to get are likely to be more than those who get it. In addition, if seen to be inadequate or unfair, the outcome could be negative. From the foregoing discussion, there is a considerable relationship between pay and performance. However, it would be too simplistic if one considers extrinsic motivators only for instance pay as a motivator, considering that non-financial rewards are also significant, and can cause a longer-lasting and deeper effect. Rewarding good performers might also imply punishing non-performers whose reasons for not doing well might be genuine, for instance sickness. Furthermore, creating a performance culture can result in extreme competition at work, at the expense of relationships and retarding teamwork. In conclusion, teamwork is a possible strategy in performance management because when accompanied by proper leadership, it produces positive competition, and its participatory nature enhances motivation. It however has its shortcomings, the main one of which is conflict. Job design on its part leads to more satisfying tasks, promotion of self esteem and elimination of stress, although its benefits are not truly generalisable. Pay, especially when tied to performance can motivate effort, ensure justice, help to attract talent, encourage positive behaviours and help align revenues with costs. However, it has to be well implemented otherwise it faces criticism about its real motivational potential, and the fact that it can imply punishment of individuals who had good reason for underperformance. Overall however, there is the need for assessment of the strategies, as they have unique challenges and require understanding in order to be effective. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aguinis, H (2005) Performance Management. Edinburgh Business School, Edinburg Ali, N and Zia-ur-Rehman, M (2014) Impact of Job Design on Employee Performance, Mediating Role of Job Satisfaction: A Study of FMCG’s Sector in Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 9 (2) 70-79 Armstrong, M and Murlis, H (2007) Reward Management: a Handbook of Remuneration Strategy and Practice. Kogan Page, London Boachie-Mensah, F and Dogbe, O (2011) Performance-Based Pay as a Motivational Tool for Achieving Organisational Performance: An Exploratory Case Study. International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 6 (12): 270-285 Chien, S, Wan, T and Chen, Y (2012) Factors Influencing Teamwork and Collaboration Within a Tertiary Medical Center. World Journal of Methodology Vol. 2(2): 18-23 Daft, R, Murphy, J and Willmott, H (2010) Organization Theory and Design. Cengage Learning, Boston Horvathova, P, Davidova, M and Bendova, M (2012) Contingent Pay and Experience with its use by Organizations of the Czech Republic Operating in the Field of Environmental Protection. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering Vol. 6 (4): 522-526 McCallin A and McCallin M (2009): Factors Influencing Team Working and Strategies to Facilitate Successful Collaborative Teamwork. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy Vol. 37(2): 61-67 Mensah, R (2013) Principles of Human Resource Management. Xlibris Corporation, Bloomington Parker, G (2013) Team players and Teamwork: New Strategies for Developing Successful Collaboration. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Sohmen, V (2013) Leadership and Teamwork: Two Sides of the Same Coin. Journal of IT and Economic Development Vol. 4(2): 1-18 Tarricone, P and Luca, J (2002) Employees, Teamwork and Social Interdependence – a Formula for Successful Business? Team Performance Management: An International Journal Vol. 8 (3): 54 - 59 Truss, C, Alfes, K, Delbridge, R, Shantz, A and Soane, E (2013) Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice. Routledge, London Yun, S, Cox, J and Sims, H (2007) Leadership and Teamwork: The Effects of Leadership and Job Satisfaction on Team Citizenship. International Journal of Leadership Studies Vol. 2 (3): 171-193 Read More