Managing People in Organizations - Regular and Bi-Annual Approaches - Report Example

Managing People in Organizations Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary 2 2.0 Introduction 3 3.0 Performance management 4 3.1 Performance appraisal 5 3.1.1 Performance appraisal at the corporate firm 6 3.1.2 Advantages and disadvantages of bi-annual approaches and regular reviews 6 3.1.3 How bi-annual and regular reviews fit in rewarding excellence at the corporate firm 12 4.0 Recommendations for the corporate firm 16 5.0 Conclusion 17 6.0 References 18 1.0 Executive Summary In order to improve the strategic position of an organization and institution, it is essential to conduct objective, transparent, fair, clear and reliable performance appraisal as a performance management best practice. Appraising performance is important in identifying productive and non productive employees, evaluating conduct of human resources, assessing the remuneration outcomes, strengths and weaknesses of workers and it helps in recognizing parts that require additional focus and employee training. This report seeks to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of regular and bi-annual approaches of reviewing and giving feedback to employees about their performance and how the two fit into the performance management process of rewarding performance. 2.0 Introduction Managing people in contemporary organizations is not an easy task since there are varied people from different cultural backgrounds with varied skills and experience who have divergent working behavior with competing ideals, attitudes and roles. In addition, the environment is coupled with increased globalization, technological advancement and randomly shifting social-cultural, geo-political, economical, environmental, legal and financial forces. Managers is charged with the responsibility of not only planning and coordinating, but also of leading and monitoring work performance to ensure the short and long-term goals and objectives of the organization are met, the needs of the customer are effectively and efficiently satisfied and the competitiveness is enhanced (Griffin & Moorhead, 2009, p.9). The manager has additional tasks of directing the labor forces, inspiring, motivating and encouraging them in a bid to help enhance productivity and performance of the employees. While managing people in an organization, the manager is mandated to select and recruit, reward, compensate, discipline, monitor and assess the employees. Therefore, competent management is linked to increased rates of organizational performance while unproductive management is linked to substandard organizational performance. In managing people in organizations, understanding the needs of the human resources, the organizational behavior and systems of leadership impact on how productive and motivated an employee is to comply to set rules and exploit their best potentials and skills to ensure accomplishment of anticipated outcomes (Griffin & Moorhead, 2009, p.19). It is important to understand that just having formal systems and structures are not adequate to meeting the massive informational needs of an organization as implied by (Martin, 2006, p.52). Every more often, managers are expected to assess performance of workers to analyze their inputs and the value they add to the organization and using the performance appraisal results to reform work processes and identifying ways in which employees can improve their work performance as implied by (Mitchell, 2007, p.6). This report seeks to compare use of bi-annual approach to performance appraisal used in a corporate firm I work for and the use of regular giving of feedback to employees. The report will explain how and whether both forms of performance feedback fit into performance management processes used to reward excellence. In addition, it will offer recommendations on the appropriate method of feedback the corporate firm should use. 3.0 Performance management To ensure high performance, modern business organizations are establishing human resources that are unique, quality, incomparable, non-substitutable and that are motivated and committed. More often than not, management personnel and organizational leaders may assess the performance of those working under them and use of inadequate systems to guide the assessment of performance may compel the management to review performance unofficially, casually and arbitrarily. Performance management involves proper scheduling, organizing, control and rewarding work performance for the labor forces (Grote, 2002, p.4). Performance management comprises of systems and activities that guarantees anticipated outcomes are continuously, attained successfully and resourcefully as defined by (Pulakos, 2009, p.1). At the corporate firm, performance management deals with enhancing the productivity of individual employees, the operational processes, a segment of the organization or the entire corporate organization. According to (Craig, 1986, p.75), reliable performance management systems allow the management to promote employee commitment, accountability and reliability to executing assigned duties, which is essential for the organization in retaining qualified, valuable and experienced workforces. 3.1 Performance appraisal Performance appraisal is a component of performance management that involves establishment of a structured official association between the management and the workforce, which is carried out at specified duration of time to appraise the productivity of the employee (Delpo, 2007, p.2). In addition, assessing their efficiency and effectiveness in attaining the vision and mission of the firm with the purpose of identifying the strong and weak points of the employee and establishing prospects for individual workers to improve their abilities, knowledge and skills (Einstein & LeMere-Labonte, 1989, p.26). Performance appraisal is a vital element in encouraging employees, improving their conduct and limiting un-productivity. Performance appraisal should be carried out without bias, with objectivity, reliability, legality, and accuracy as established by. Reviewing performance is imperative in examining productive and non productive employees, evaluating conduct of human resources, assessing the remuneration outcomes, strengths and weaknesses of workers and it helps in recognizing parts that require additional focus and employee training (Mitchell, 2007, p.7). 3.1.1 Performance appraisal at the corporate firm At the corporate firm I work as a manager, performance appraisal is conducted in midyear and annually. This approach of giving employee feedback is referred to as bi-annual approach. The approach has been in use in the corporate firm for a while. The bi-annual approach has been an essential practice used by the firm to rate employees in terms of productivity and inputs, to assess their level of job satisfaction and their motivational levels. As a performance assessment tool, it is useful as a planning and communication tool to effect organization change and modifying organization behavior meant to enhance interrelationships and communication between the employees and the management as suggested by (Miller & Thornton, 2006, p. 155). Feedback received from performance appraisal exercises bi-annually has been beneficial in problem solving and decision-making processes at the corporate firm. The bi-annual approach used at the corporate firm has incorporated the core goals of the firm and the employee development plans. 3.1.2 Advantages and disadvantages of bi-annual approaches and regular reviews Both bi-annual and regular giving of feedback to employees approaches among other performance reviews are meant to analyze, audit, inspire, establish the training needs of the employees, foster employee development and support strategies for future performance as indicated by (Garber, 2004, p.1). In addition, develop criteria required to allocate rewards, foster organizational diagnosis and development, enhance communication between the management and the workforces and validate selection and firing methods (Delpo, 2007, p.11). Bi-annual approach takes less resources required to facilitate performance appraisal process since it is carried only twice a year, on the other hand, regular approach costs more, since performance evaluation is carried every other day. Using bi-annual approach of performance appraisal however, takes more time to conduct since, the management has to consolidate information generated within a period of six months compared to regular approach where the performance information is always, updated and therefore, it does not take long to facilitate the process as discussed by (Bacal, 2004, p.69). In addition, in regular approach, the employees are accustomed to filling in the performance forms and thus, take less time to fill in contrast to bi-annual method, where employees have to be guided through the process which eats a lot of time. At the corporate firm for instance, the performance appraisal takes more than a month to accomplish fully. This would not be the case if regular reviews were used. Regular approach of giving feedback to employees enhances constant interaction and communication between the management and the employee. This is fundamental in identifying crises whenever and wherever they occur and generating prompt decisions and actions necessary to avert the situation, which in bi-annual approach may go unnoticed as highlighted by (Craig, 1986, p.76). Since bi-annual approach is carried out only twice in twelve months, there is increased likelihood for the appraising team to overlook small details necessary to make the appraisal process effective, accurate and reliable as stated by (Bacal, 2004, p.69). For example, it becomes hard for managers to remember minor details about an employee performance especially for a company that has a large workforce. In bi-annual approach, appraisers at the corporate firm for insance, are more prone to leniency, central tendency and they tend to generalize performance ratings, which limits the ability of the firm to identify important details such as absenteeism and daily incapacities of employees as witnessed at the corporate firm (Bacal, 2004, P.69). In addition, noting work-associated problems and conflicts of interests, identifying inefficiency and lack of proficiency in workers to carry out and accomplish assigned tasks, establishing the factual rates of work performance, level of work competence and the level of employee commitment to meeting targets. For instance, due to the increased workload associated with performance appraisal, as a manager at the corporate firm, I have opted to use the simplest rating scale to ease my work or at worse give average marks for all employees such as ‘good’ and ‘excellent’. This has more often, affected the performance appraisal outcomes and interpretations, since what may be good or excellent to me as a manager may not necessarily be for another. Use of regular approach helps in enhancing quality of employee performance assessment as the employees are able to routinely evaluate what others and themselves perceive of their performance, and they are able to analyze their performance patterns which are essential in identifying when they are most productive and what are the underlying factors. In regular approach, employees participate in performance appraisal as a means to measure their overall growth, which contrast bi-annual approach where more often than not, employees see the process as a tool to measure how much rewards and incentives they will receive. This has a detrimental effect to employees who instead of focusing on their overall growth, they focus on areas that would boost their grades, hence, higher rewards and benefits as illustrated by employees at the corporate firm. Since bi-annual approaches is financial oriented than people-focused, employees are more likely to engage in work rivalry in a bid to gain the best rewards and consequently fragment the spirit of teamwork necessary in enhancing work performance and meeting the set goals and objectives of the corporate firm. This is associated with the fact that the two reviews occur during half year and annual financial assessment and budgeting for majority of firms globally. Regular appraisal is critical in promptly identifying errors in performance appraisals since it is easy to notice inconsistencies. This helps in limiting chances of biasness and lack of objectivity in assessing employees, which helps in boosting the trust, commitment and confidence of employees in the performance appraisal systems, necessary to meeting the objectives and goals of conducting the performance assessment exercises (Miller & Thornton, 2006, p.162). It becomes easy for the management to identify reduced levels of job satisfaction, reduced employee morale, reduced productivity and performance in workers among other changes in the behavior and conduct of employees in relation to performance using regular approach thus, it becomes relatively easier to seek the causes of the changes and implement effective remedies (Delpo, 2007, p.11). For example, a group leader can easily notice an employee who would meet targets and suddenly they are unable to, in such cases, the group leader is able to talk with the employee, seek the root causes and help the employee in improving performance and resolving the underlying factors. With increased cutthroat competition and changing customer needs and expectations, it is essential for an organization to correlate their performance appraisal systems with the mission, value systems, policies, vision, goals and objectives of the organization regardless whether the systems used for giving feedback as suggested by (Cardy, et al., 2011, p1.1). When designing and selecting the most sufficient and suitable performance appraisal criteria and systems to use, the management should ensure the systems is fully embraced, by the employees and accommodated as a HR tool and the systems should not be used to justify negative salary reviews for employees. Performance appraisal and giving feedback to employees should not be a one-time procedure, but a continuous process of monitoring and developing individuals and teams while aligning the goals of the firm to performance goals that helps the management in formulation, implementation and evaluation of strategic performance and management plans as suggested by (Garber, 2004, p.8). Bi-annual approach fails to make any difference in terms of employee productivity, employee development and training because it occurs less often and when it is done, it is more likely to be forgotten until the next performance appraisal after another six months (Garber, 2004, p.9). At the corporate firm for example where biannual reviews are used, performance appraisal process is perceived as a one-time thing, it is conducted hurriedly to beat the set performance appraisal deadline and once it is completed, no much thought is focused on it until the next appraisal session. Bi-annual approaches are too infrequent to effect any significant changes to overall growth of the employees as highlighted by (Garber, 2004, p.2). In addition, they tend to be too formal, thus, intimidating and putting the employees under extreme pressure to indicate positive bi-annual performance. Bi-annual reviews are more of a duty managers have to do than they are systems and processes meant to enhance teamwork and employee performance. Regular reviews in contrast, are less formal and frequent enough to develop the career of workers and address their training needs. Regular reviews are more effective and adequate in managing work performance, since most employees are able to remember in detail what has occurred over a short duration of time (Garber, 2004, p.8). The manager takes a shorter time facilitating the process than when they are facilitating bi-annual reviews, since, when they are doing bi-annual assessments, the manager only have to review the past two weeks or so and attach the previous regular reviews conducted. Assessing the task by task performance of employees allow the management and the employees to know immediately what they are doing right or incorrectly so they can rectify promptly and not six months or more when habit has grown to become a common behavior for employees as highlighted by (Bacal, 2004, p.70). Regular reviews are also essential as high performance is recognized, and rewarded promptly (Goel, 2008, p.227) and unlike in bi-annual reviews when an employee may perform well but due to failure to recognize and appreciate their hard work, they change their activities, which is detrimental for work performance. Since regular reviews are less formal, it becomes easy for the internal environment to associate and interact effectively, which is crucial for communication flow, workflow and enhancing teamwork. This eradicate instances of job-related stressors, worker rivalry, biasness, lack of employee motivation and instances when productive workers feel short changed as unproductive workers are able to ride on the performance and success of others (Garber, 2004, p.8). This may result in the productive workers regressing and working less hard, since it does not make a difference for them as a group or as an individual when they work harder. In bi-annual reviews, a manager is more likely to send inconsistent messages to employees since it becomes difficult for both the employees and managers to remember every detail that each employee has done, especially when they are no updated performance records (Garber, 2004, p.9). Incase performance appraisal is used as a tool for rating salaries; it becomes difficult to determine who gets what and why. Bi-annual reviews are characterized by lack of remedial action during the year period and the manager drives the process and the employees are compelled to be compliant during performance assessment. The management offers opinions while the employees are left to defend their position instead of the process becoming a positive means of communicating (Garber, 2004, p.9) and discussing and the process is usually done hastily to meet a budget development procedure and thus, the process loses its bearing to work performance. It is crucial whichever approach an organization takes, the system remains meaningful as suggested by (Garber, 2004, p.7) 3.1.3 How bi-annual and regular reviews fit in rewarding excellence at the corporate firm Bi-annual and regular reviews and giving feedback to employees as approaches in performance appraisal do fit into the performance management process used by organizations to reward excellence. Effectual performance management process is that which is able to improve employee participation, development and work performance, weigh both positives and negatives of employees as stated by (Garber, 2004, p.9), generate better alignment of employee duties and goals with the mission and vision of the firm and enhances continuous and practical succession management. Moreover, performance management process that remains consistent across units to improve overall growth and use employee skills and proficiencies. Effective performance management process is adaptable, objective, unbiased, timely and transparent and it enhances the interrelation of workers in the firm beginning when they are hired, through their career development and progression to when they retire from work and employees continuously grow and are engaged continuously as implied by (O.E.C.D. 2005, p.70). At the corporate firm, it assesses past work performance and objectives and puts more emphasis on future development prospects that are in correlation with the goals and objectives of each employee and those of the firm as implied by (Garber, 2004, p.9). The performance management process involves recognizing and establishing measures that would distinguish effective and ineffectual performances, communicating to workers the standards that will be utilized in appraising performance and identifying job expectations, and allocating resources to support goal attainment (Griffin & Moorhead, 2009, p.145). The next step in the performance management process is monitoring performance continuously by offering assistance and discarding obstacles where needed and reviewing performance data and communicating performance feedback to the employees. Finally, using the assessment and feedback outcomes, decisions are made on salary increment, promotion, disciplinary actions, and bonuses, training needs and career development and development of performance. The bi-annual and regular reviews fit into the performance management process used to reward excellence by ensuring that there is a correlation between the performance measures and goals with the strategic goals and objectives of the firm. This ensures employees are performing towards achieving a common goal and thus, register increased participation and commitment. The two approaches has to take into consideration not only the responsibility of workers, but also evaluating organizational and individual behaviors that influence the productivity and work performance of employees that include customer relations, teamwork, initiatives in solving problems and making logical decisions, leadership in managing a culturally diversified workforce and monitoring hours worked. Moreover, continuous planning, coaching, reviewing and giving feedback to help employees and the management in knowing what needs to be achieved and how it should be achieved (Delpo, 2007, p.75). In order for the two approaches to facilitate effective rewarding of excellence, it is essential for the employees to take the initiative of their performance and ensure that appraisal aligned to rewards depict factual rate of performance of employees as stated by (Goel, 2008, p.227). Additionally, focusing development on goals to be attained consequently, equipping employees to perform their assigned tasks and increase the importance in training investments (Griffin & Moorhead, 2009, p.150). Performance appraisal using bi-annual reviews used at the corporate firm not only focuses and highlights the weak points of the employees, but also, highlights key performance areas they have excelled in. This means, employees are able to identify areas they are unproductive and at the same time, identify their strengths and thus, ameliorate their weaknesses. Concentrating on weak points only subject employees to unnecessary negative impression of themselves, low self-confidence, low self- esteem, and they are more likely to quit citing lack of job satisfaction and lack of adequate motivation. At the corporate firm for example, the management communicates performance feedback to employees by addressing individual capabilities and weak points of each employee in different department and thereby, a performance action plan is drawn that identifies each employee’s training need and ways in which each employee can be motivated to reinforce their strengths and improve on their weaknesses. For instance, an employee in the communication department at the corporate firm has always reported rate due to transport issues but showed increase commitment to work even during late hours. The human resource manager agreed with the employee that she would report an hour late but cover it up by leaving an hour later than everyone else. After the agreement, the employee registered increased job satisfaction, commitment and performance since; she felt the timeframe adjusted and fitted her best. Currently, she has ranked the best employee of the month for three consecutive months. By ensuring the reviews are conducted in compliance to applicable legal procedures and regulations as suggested by (Armstrong & Appelbaum, 2003, p.145), ensuring they are conducted fairly, objectively, transparently and accurately, both bi-annual and regular reviews become reliable and viable tools in assessing employees who are productive and rewarding them accordingly, and identifying and eliminating unproductive employees. At the corporate firm for example, bi-annual reviews are compliant to legal guidelines, which is vital in limiting employee misconduct, promoting employee loyalty, improving team output standards, enhancing morale of productive workers, helping weaker employees develop and helps in attaining performance goals and organizational goals and objectives (Armstrong, 2002, p.18). 4.0 Recommendations for the corporate firm Combinations of regular and bi-annual reviews are the appropriate approaches for carrying out performance management and performance appraisal processes at the corporate firm. Suitability of a combination of bi-annual and regular reviews and feedback is associated with the benefits associated with both approaches. This includes the ability of the corporate firm to limit the cost, time and workload associated with use of bi-annual reviews only and helping the corporate firm to focus not only on financial aspect of performance but also, overall development of the employees. Using both bi-annual and regular reviews, the management and the employees at the corporate firm will be able to effectively and efficiently attain anticipated outcomes and align their individual goals to HR decisions as highlighted by (Cardy, et al., 2011, p. 116). Using regular and bi-annual reviews and feedback at the corporate firm will be beneficial in generating healthy performance discussions, identifying and resolving issues promptly and ensuring performance appraisal practice is a continuous process entrenched into the corporate firm’s culture and behavior of employees as indicated by (Cardy, et al., 2011. p, 44). This is vital in eradicating negative attitude, and perception employees have about performance appraisal. 5.0 Conclusion Managing people in an organization requires not only formal structures and systems to direct the human resources, but require effective communication and interrelations necessary to influence organization behavior and foster positive organization culture. This report has compared use of bi-annual approach to performance appraisal used in a corporate firm I work for and the use of regular giving of feedback to employees. The report has in-depth explained how and whether both forms of performance feedback fit into performance management processes used to reward excellence. In addition, it has offered recommendations on the appropriate method of feedback the corporate firm should use. Use of regular reviews are more favorable than bi-annual reviews but in order for the corporate firm to tap into the positive benefits associated with both approaches, the recommendations is that the firm integrate both approaches and utilize them in the performance management processes and systems. Performance appraisal as the report has identified, needs to correlate with the goals and values of the organization, assess performance and potential to develop and cater for both individual and organizational needs. Additionally, link rewards to accomplishments, provide information valuable to planning, employee development, and decision making and planning and generate suitable person to task matching to ensure the right employee fits in the right job position. 6.0 References Armstrong, M. 2002. Employee reward. New York: CIPD Publishing. Armstrong, S., & Appelbaum. 2003. Stress-Free Performance Appraisals: Turn Your Most Painful Management Duty Into a Powerful Motivational Tool. Sidney: Career Press. Bacal, R. 2004 Manager's guide to performance reviews. New Jersey: McGraw-Hill Professional. Cardy, R.L., Leonard, B., Newman, B. I. 2011. Performance Management: Concepts, Skills, and Exercises. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Craig, S. E., Beatty, R. W., & Baird, L. S. 1986. Creating a performance management system. Training and Development Journal, 38-42; 74-79. Delpo, A. 2007. The performance appraisal handbook: legal & practical rules for managers. London: Nolo. Einstein, W. O., & LeMere-Labonte, J. 1989. Performance appraisal: dilemma or desire? Sam Advanced Management Journal, 54 (2): 26-30. Garber, P.R. 2004. Giving and Receiving Performance Feedback. London: Human Resource Development. Goel. 2008. Performance Appraisal and Compensation Management: A Modern Approach. Stanford: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Griffin, R.W., & Moorhead, G. 2009. Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. London: Cengage Learning. Grote, R.C. 2002. The performance appraisal question and answer book: a survival guide for managers. New York: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Martin, G. 2006. Managing people and organizations in changing contexts. London: Butterworth-Heinemann. Miller, C.E. & Thornton, C.L. 2006. ‘How accurate are your performance appraisals?’ Public Personnel Management, Vol. 35, No.2, pp. 153-162. Mitchell, D. 2007. Performance Management. New York: Global Media. O.E.C.D. 2005. Performance-related pay policies for government employees. London: OECD Publishing. Pulakos, E.D. 2009. Performance Management: A New Approach for Driving Business Results. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Read More