Employee Performance Concept - Coursework Example

Running Head: EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE Employee performance Name Institution Date Introduction Human resources management is an organization’s function that focuses on people’s employment, management, and giving guidance to individuals working within the organization. It also deals with matters related to individuals such as hiring, reward, company growth, safety, wellbeing, advantages, motivation of employees, and training. In any company, the objective for development as well as fast attainment of income and profit are regarded as the main duty for management. As a result, various actions that are related to research and study concerning the organization’s development are considered as critical in order to preserve competitive situation in the market (Rodgers 1999). Human resources are taken as an important aspect in an organization due to the fact that workers are always involved in organization’s daily activities in order to make a product or service. It is therefore important for any organization to concentrate on how to develop the working situation and environment of workers in order to enhance their self-esteem and their contentment that will assist in improving workers performance, and later improve the general performance of the organization. This will assists in maintaining the company’s competitive advantage in the market (Rodgers 1999). Contemporary theory: systems theory Management’s contemporary theories tend to account for and assist in interpreting the rapid change in the current environments of the organization. Systems theory has an important impact on management science and knowing organizations. A system is a compilation of parts combined to achieve an overall objective. For instance, a heap of sand is not a system. If a particle of sand is removed, sand’s heap will still remain. However a car that functions is a system. If its carburetor is removed then the car will no longer work. A system can be viewed at as having processes, inputs, outputs, and results (Cohen 2002). Inputs consist of resources such as funds, employees, raw materials, and technologies. These inputs pass through a process that is planned, motivated, restricted, and planned, finally to meet the goals of the organization. Outputs are products to a market. Outcomes increases quality of life or customer’s productivity. Feedback is human resources information that undertakes the process. It is also information from customers who utilizes the products. Feedback comes from organization’s large environment for instance, government, economics, society, and technologies influences. This general system framework is relevant to any structure, including subsystems in the general organization. System theory has introduced a new perception for managers to understand patterns and proceedings in the place of work. The theory recognizes different parts of the company, and to be specific, the interrelations of the elements, for example, the organization of main administration with its plans, manufacturing and engineering, employees with supervisors, etc. This is a main growth. Literature review on employee performance Not every literature agrees on general, positive impacts of participation of employees on their performance. Some proposes that involvement may have either no impact or negative impacts on performance. However, it is hard to distinguish a definitive pattern. Absence of steadiness in the results of participatory measures proposes that systems are not separated from the impacts of the external political, economic and social environment. Participatory measures such as working in a team and high involvement in employment practices display enhancements in performance, and have less positive results for worker and social welfare. Changes in employee’s performance may happen because involvement leads to attitudes change which leads to improved performance. On the other hand, changes in behaviour and performance may be attained through fear and intensified work surrounding (Garfield 2001). Explanation for these conflicting outcomes is that participation systems are at times brought as part of reform packages. When workers are encountered with an insecure surrounding, their participation might encourage compliance and not the changes in attitude that is essential for commitment of employees to the enterprise. Therefore changes in behavior might not be of the order predictable. Garfield (2001) argues that the amount of influence accorded to workers is very significant. Low participation’s levels with little worker independence have been recognized as a basis for disappointing outcomes. Where expectations of employees have been increased by introducing involvement, but there is small real development in worker influence, employees may express anger and dissatisfaction. Where involvement is from top down alone, employees may have a feeling that management is applying their ideas, without them seeing the return. High participation’s levels have their own disadvantages. Workers do not always create hard decisions. They usually choose results that optimize their income, not profit. Workers are also unable to discipline their colleagues thus prolonging decision making. On the side of management, high levels of worker influence may imply that input of managers in making decision is minimized. This might result in competitiveness reduction (Schneier 2005). Involvement of employees can be classified as individual against collective. Participation’s individualized forms may contradict with prevailing collective preparations and fail to induce a pleasant climate. Individualized monetary participation and a reduction in prices of share could make it impossible to attract staffs that are of high quality. However, collective participation can operate with the prevailing labour relations attitudes and channels in a productive way. Therefore the function of trade unions continues to be important thus increasing employee’s performance. According to Schneier (2005), the positive effect on performance always come up when the measures for participation are applied in combination, either as monetary and work-related participation, or as delegate and direct participation. Any combination might work on employee perceptions, promoting high level of good relations within the place of work and permitting employees with various motivations to enjoy participation’s benefits. Workers are not a uniform group reacting equally to participation initiatives. Different workers have various motivations. Some of these workers react to monetary incentives while others respond to work-related or more social incentives. Therefore a combination of monetary and work-related participation always seems to have a constructive impact on employee’s performance. Transferability of participation systems, particularly among big and small firms is very important. Participation systems applied in large firms can have positive impacts in small firms. Involvement measures can be moved among industrial sectors and among various national conditions. For instance, the achievement of Japanese sharing of profit and other participation techniques has been taken care of by unique culture of Japan that emphasizes joint obligations by worker and employer. Work-related involvement can put a premium on social issues such as capability to converse and the time existing to commit to involvement. Involvement can therefore intensify both social benefit and social disadvantage. For instance, caring responsibilities might imply that a number of workers have relatively little time to attend meetings and this reduces their performance. A number of systems depend on questionable assumptions about workers, for instance, women at times are not committed to their work and they may not be willing to participate. Therefore they always have low work performance. Other groups suffer from intensified limitation, including tribal minorities, agency employees, single parents, and temporary employees. These limit their impacts on ability and opportunity for participation thus reducing their performance (Meyer 2000). Disadvantaged groups and persons, such as older employees, tribal minorities and disabled persons, might have a limited voice in the workplace. Together with high employment insecurity, workers performance can be reduced through frustration and inability, with a negative effect on managerial performance and quality of workers wellbeing. Participation systems in tandem with wellbeing measures, such as equivalent opportunities and policies that are friendly to the family, this improves managerial performance and the quality of workers wellbeing. Workers seem to have some voice in larger organization. It happens to be collective, and spoken through trade unions or associations of staffs. Smaller ventures typically do not have collective ways of expression, though direct communication can exist among individual workers and their managers over elastic working. Individuals have been discussing informal preparations with their employers in small and medium-sized enterprise to fit their individual situations, but few workers have a strong voice to a attain this. With all of these in place the performance of employees can be enhanced over time, in both small and medium-sized enterprise. According to Meyer (2000), policies that are friendly to the family seem to spread wide and deeply rooted in enterprises which identify unions. This association does not mean that union’s voice is more effective. Employee’s performance tends to be high in enterprises that recognize the trade union. Consultation among line managers is restricted, with the probable exclusion of health services, where there is a managerial consultation’s cultural tradition. However, the main factor controlling employers to apply or extend policies that are friendly to family seems less combined. The market of labour conditions is supported by minimal constitutional requirements. Time management is an important workplace procedure over which workers, particularly those with family responsibilities, require control’s measure in order to fight tensions among work and home demands. Proper time management always improves the performance of employees. In spite of some softening of political environment towards trade unions and shortage of labor in some area, there is little proof that workers, individually or combined, have been capable to form any important impression on work-life company’s agendas, even with proof that there can be an organization case for such policies. It also appears that a number of managers persist to implement a gendered and probably marginalized perspective of life issues at work. Impact of employee performance on organization’s competitive advantage In the current business world organizations are often searching for competitive advantage in the market. Many studies shows that performance appraisal is a significant contribution to a worker negative relations, which might have a negative effect on productivity and profitability which intern affects an organization competitive advantage. Workers who are dedicated to the organization and highly engaged in their work give organizations competitive advantage, such as increased productivity and lower worker turnover. Firms that encourage effect communication are four times probable to realize high degree of employee engagement as compared to firms that do not encourage effective communication. This makes one firm to have a competitive advantage over another firm. Therefore an increase in employee performance in a given firm often improves its competitive advantage (Bedi 2004). In a cost leadership strategy an organization always aim at achieving lower costs relative to its competitors. When costs of an organization are lowered its output prices will also go down. This will intern increase demand for the commodities and services that it produces. For any organization to attain lower production costs, its employee’s performance needs to be improved. Organizations will gain competitive advantage if their cost of production is lowered. In case the commodities and services cannot be produced at a reduced cost it implies an organization will experience high production costs and lower profit margins. This can weaken its competitive strength in the market. Therefore to compete well basing on costs, managers must look for ways of improving workers performance and design a system that can reduce the cost per unit output. Higher employee’s performance will positively impact on an organization’s competitive advantage (Bedi 2004). Another way of promoting competition is to develop uniqueness such that goods and services of a given organization are clearly differentiated from products of its competitors. Creativity and innovation result to production unique products. An improvement in employee’s performance tend to increase workers creativity and innovation which have been identified as essential in attaining an organization’s required change thus making the concerned organization achieve a competitive advantage. Bedi (2004) argues that creativity is the generation of options and ideas. Innovation is transformation of these ideas and options into constructive applications that result to change and improvement. Nowadays, in business environment, an important factor for an organization to be more competitive is adoptability. It must be able to operate at a speed of change that is it needs to be creative and innovative. Quality enhancement is a strategy that is applied by many organizations so that their products and services can meet the required market standard. This always make them to compete favorably in a given market conditions. Quality enhancement always implies changing the procedures of production in a way that demands employees to be more flexible and more involved. Therefore an increase in employee’s performance increases an organization’s competitive advantage (Budhwar 2008). Limitations of employee’s performance The process of improving the performance of employees is not an enjoyable experience. It always has the ability to discourage workers. The process is expected to be more encouraging, reinforce positively and celebrating worth of accomplishments, but this is not always the case. It is always hard for managers to asses the performance of employees. Managers always find it hard to keep notes and correct records of employee’s performance and behavior. Employees always do not get consistent information concerning their performance. Managers always find it hard in assessing the performance of employees in their organization. It is always hard for them to do away with biasness. It needs a very structured, objective procedure and a grown up managers for them to be unbiased throughout the process (Schneier 2005). Conclusion It can be concluded from our discussion that both equal opportunities and policies that are friendly to family increases both performance of an organization and performance of workers. Employee’s performance is positively related to the organization’s competitive advantage that is an increase in performance of workers always tends to improve an organization competitive advantage. From our discussion it has been noted that there is no accurate method of measuring the performance of employees. References Rodgers, R. C. & Helburn, I. B., (1999). The Relationship of Seniority to Job Performance Following Reinstatement Academy of Management Journal. Briarcliff Manor: Vol. 29, Iss. 1; p. 101 Cohen, A. & Quarrey, M. (2002). Performance of Employee-Owned Small Companies: A Preliminary Study. Journal of Small Business Management. Milwaukee: Vol. 24, Iss. 2; p. 58 Garfield, C. A. (2001). Peak Performance in Business. Training and Development Journal. Vol. 41, Iss. 4; p. 54 Budhwar S. P. (2008) Performance Management Systems: A Global Perspective. New York: Taylor & Francis. Schneier, C. & Brown, A. (2005).Unlocking Employee Potential: Managing Performance (Part 1) Management Solutions.Vol. 33, Iss. 1; p. 14 Meyer, J. et al (2000) Organizational Commitment and Job Performance: It's The Nat. Journal of Applied Psychology. Washington: Vol. 74, Iss. 1; p. 152 Bedi, H. (2004). Support is crucial to performance Asian Business. Hong Kong: Vol. 30, Iss. 11; p. 18 Read More