Employee Progress Benefit - Essay Example

Student: ID: Tutor: Course title: Course code: Institutional affiliation: Date of submission: The unitarist approach to employment relations favours the notion that both employees and employers can harmoniously work together by understanding the need s and aspirations of either party. It is an approach that is focused on individual relationship rather than a pluralist relationship between employers on one side and employees on the other side which is the approach industrial relations view of the employment relationship. A key element of the unitarist approach of the human resource management approach is performance management which involves setting standards for expected performance towards set goals. It rewards employee’s progress towards the set goals of the organisation. Both the employer and the employee benefit from the good performance of the employee as seen from a unitarist perspective. But from a pluralist perspective, the employer and the employee can never have same interests or objectives; the employer wants to get as much labour for as less cost, while the employee wants to get as much pay from lesser labour contributed (Rowley & Jackson, 2010; Deery & Mitchell, 1999). In light of this understanding, this paper seeks to analyse how performance management benefits both the employees and the employers bearing in mind the deferring interests as highlighted by the pluralist approach and the need to cooperate as highlighted by the unitarist approach. Some of the issues that will help in building a case for the notion that performance management is beneficial to both parties in an employment relation include pay rise as agreed, clear outline and achievement of organisational goals, reduction of conflicts. Some of the issues to build the case against the argument include the idea that unrealistic goals maybe set, external factors are not considered mostly, it may also demoralise employees. One key feature of performance management is a reward and punishment system whereby if employees meet their set goals there is usually a reward to be achieved and punishment for the opposite. It is common for sales representatives to be given a certain sales figure to hit by the end of a particular period. If the don’t meet it then they can be demoted as indicated by the management as they seek to put pressure on employees to perform. In the same way that punishment is meted, reward is given to top performance in the organisation as greed upon in the performance management agreements (de Waal & Kourtit, 2013). This benefits both the employer and the employees as the employer gets to hit the organisations targets and the employee is rewarded mostly with a pay rise. This is the kind of scenario that the human resource management approach emphasises with rewarding individual effort according the performance delivered as opposed to industrial benefits which leave the employer at a disadvantaged position of rewarding even non-performing employees to abide by the law (Rowley & Jackson, 2010). Performance management brings about a predictable state of affairs in terms of setting clear goals to be pursued by the employees and the employer in a combined effort. There is a clear planning process whereby each and every player within the organisation understands what is expected of them. This reduces conflict and develops within everybody a resolve to accomplish just what they are intended to accomplish (Counet & de Waal, 2009). It is important to note that in a performance management arrangement, there is constant management of progress towards goal through mutually agreed upon parameters that help to ensure everybody stays on course towards achieving the collective objective of the organisation and in effect achieve individual goals. There is also a clear connection between the management goals and the ambitions and actions of the employees this is not achievable without a good plan that is characteristic of sound performance management (de Waal & Kourtit, 2013). Performance management simplifies communication of strategic goals and objectives through the already laid down framework where everybody is quite aware of the strategic direction of the organisation and what duties and magnitude of effort that they are to give to help the organisation realise its goals and in the process the individual also achieves success as predefined by the performance management as agreed upon. This brings about a harmonious relationship between the employer and the employee since the employee first consents to the ambition of the employer as regards the organisation and the expected contribution of the employee (Brumback, 2003). Lewis, Thornhill, & Saunders (2003) note that there is also transparency in the monitoring and review process since there is set parameters that are to be followed by the employer in analysing the performance of the employee. Review is not solely define narrowly on the opinion and perception of the employer but rather through a performance management framework that seeks to balance the interests of both the employee and the employer in the spirit of cooperation envisioned by the unitarist approach to employment relations. While there are quite impressive benefits that could come out of performance management such as commitment to goals and reward of performance as discussed in this paper, there are also some disadvantages of the performance management framework in fostering good relations between the employers and employees. This is true depending on which side of the divide one is reflecting upon performance management within the context of employment relations. The pluralist and radical approach to employment relations oppose the notion that there can be mutual benefits accrued from the employment relationship. The proponents of the industrial relations approach or the pluralist approach contend that the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits that can be realised. Performance management is viewed narrowly within the context of hidden oppression where only the interests of the employer are considered (Rowley & Jackson, 2010). According to Armstrong & Baron (2005) performance management initiatives are most often viewed by some employees as setting largely unrealistic expectations. The expectations set by the employer are so high that only a certain percentage can be achieved. This will most of the time dampen the resolve of the employees to move towards achieving the set targets by having the feeling that no matter how much effort they put then they cannot achieve the objectives. It almost seems like a lie to promise the employees a reward on one had but on the other hand setting unrealistic expectations for the employees. Employees mostly have little say on the structuring of a performance management strategy to be adopted by the management. They only have to abide by it. It is such state of affairs that make the pluralists conclude that employers and employees can never have common objectives and as such performance management is only designed to benefit the employers and not the employees per se (Rowley & Jackson, 2010). When setting performance management goals, the management places little emphasis on the dynamics of the external organisational environment which has the capability of greatly influencing the overall performance of the organisation. This means that employees are mostly at odds explaining poor performance when pin reality they had put in enough effort to achieve the agreed goals. The implication of this is ruined relations between the management and the employees much to the disadvantage of the employee who are always at the receiving end when the management decides how to handle poor performance in a rather demoralising manner. The blame of the external influencers is to be beared by the employee (de Waal & Kourtit, 2013). This is another reason why the performance management initiatives are viewed as largely skewed in favour of the employer and not the employee. The performance management may serve to erode the motivation of employees. This is especially true for organisations that rely on performance management as the sole basis of the relationship between the employer and the employees. There is a great chance that employees and supervisors may occasionally engage in conflicts when poor ranking of an employee deters salary increment. If supervisors recommend pay increment it may also not sit well with management in relation to maintaining salary bill low. Due to this reality, most employees will be unmotivated to give maximum effort towards their productivity at the firm. The impact of this is low productivity of the organisation in whole thus reducing profitability and derailment of attainment of goals and objectives. This will most obviously disadvantage the employer at first but the employee in the long run since poor performance is not sustainable for long in a profit making organisation (Armstrong & Baron, 2005). Employees too are not comfortable as humans to see that the relationship between them and the management is narrowly defined within the context of performance management. It is a reality that many of the employees don’t like to be pointed at. The main relationship in employment arrangement is sale of labour for wages. All the same employees want to believe that their ambitions and those of the employer are intertwined and commercialising the relationship is in itself devaluing the unquantifiable effort that the employee puts in including sacrificing family relations to ensure success of the employers business. This feeling will lower productivity and impact negatively on the ambitions of the employer (Brumback, 2003). In conclusion, it is fair to say that performance management is a smart effort towards ensuring organisational effectiveness in terms of focusing on organisational goals and realising profitability pin the process. All the same it is important to note that performance management cannot be solely, relied upon to define the relationship between the employer and the employee. Performance management ensures clear articulation of goals and strategizes on how to go about it. It also gives employees a chance to claim rewards for their contribution. On the other hand it can erode motivation and cause conflict between the employer and the employee due to unrealistic targets and unfulfilled promises. In light of the contention by the pluralist, performance management should therefore be viewed as not benefiting either party in employment relations and particularly the employee. However the unitarist view begs to differ arguing that performance management rewards hardworking employees and ensures employers’ expectations are fulfilled. References Armstrong, M., & Baron, A. (2005). Managing Performance: Performance Management in Action. CIPD Publishing. Brumback, G. (2003). Blending “we/me” in performance management. Team Performance Management , 9 (7/8), 167-173. Counet, H., & de Waal, A. (2009). Lessons learned from performance management systems implementations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , 58 (4), 367-390. de Waal, A., & Kourtit, K. (2013). Performance measurement and management in practice: Advantages, disadvantages and reasons for use. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management , 62 (5), 446-473. Deery, S., & Mitchell, R. (1999). Employment Relations: Individualisation and Union Exclusion : an International Study. Federation Press. Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., & Saunders, M. (2003). Employee Relations: Understanding the Employment Relationship. Financial Times Prentice Hall. Rowley, C., & Jackson, K. (2010). Human Resource Management: The Key Concepts. Taylor & Francis. Read More