•
it communicates a strategic vision to the
organisation
•
it sets individual and departmental targets
•
a formal review of performance is involved
•
the review process identifies training,
development and reward outcomes
•
it evaluates and refines the whole performance
management process.
Managing individual performance
is an issue of strategic importance; an
organisation’s purposes are achieved through the sum of individual performances.
Performance management is the means to link the two together; it is concerned
with improving the performance of employees so that organisational objectives
are achieved.
It could be argued that there is
no single view of performance management. In the widest sense it can mean all
of the processes directed towards performance improvement in an organisation or
the focus can be much narrower, concentrating on initiatives such as
performance related pay, bonuses, sales incentives and non-monetary rewards
(see Figure 2.2).
There are also different degrees
of emphasis on two of the main approaches to performance management:
1. Formal systems of performance using targets, feedback and
corrective action.
2. Improving individual performance
through personal development and support – a ‘people management’ approach.
The extent to which one or the
other is emphasised gives very different experiences of the process. At the
heart of performance management is the idea that organisational performance can
be improved by designing, in a holistic way, a series of interconnected
practices which encourage individual and group performance and link it to organisational
goals. These interconnected practices are known as performance management
systems.
Regardless of definition or
emphasis central features of performance management could be said to include:
• Improving performance. The emphasis on how to
achieve this may be on systems and procedures or on personal development and
motivation, or a combination of the two
•
a range of measures and approaches coordinated
to achieve improved performance; this is known as a performance management
system (PMS)
•
key processes common to nearly all approaches:
the setting of targets and objectives, monitoring, performance review and
performance improvement
•
Managers needing to understand the nature of
work in organisations (the inputs, the transformation process and the outputs)
to correctly interpret information on performance.
Performance management systems (PMS)
The idea of improving
organisational performance is central to management thinking. In competitive
markets, businesses need to strive constantly to improve their performance so
that they remain viable. In many industries and also many countries too, these
pressures have grown as domestic markets have become increasingly open to
international competition. In the public and not-for-profit sectors, the
growing use of performance benchmarking (that is, comparing performance with
best practice in other organisations) has introduced similar pressures. As a
result, the measurement and management of performance have become increasingly
important preoccupations.
Some of the components of
performance management, such as goal setting, appraisal, personal development
and performance-related pay may be familiar to you already. What is important
is the way they are put together or integrated. It is the integration of the
components – horizontal and vertical – which provides a system to manage
performance:
•
vertical integration is the linkage between
corporate goals, departmental objectives and individual target setting
•
horizontal integration is the coordination of
individual and team goal setting, performance standard definition,
communication, monitoring, feedback, analysis of training needs and rewards to
bring about the desired performance.
Figure 2.3 Vertical and
horizontal integration in action
In an organisation, large or
small, each department or section reviews its purposes in relation to the
overall business strategy. (Ideally corporate strategy may be amended in the
light of feedback from departments!) Individual objectives are then set to
achieve the departmental purposes. Following evaluation of performance,
performance-related payments may be triggered and/or personal development
undertaken. This leads into a further round of objective setting, making the
process and ongoing one and not just an ‘annual ritual’.
A number of aspects of this model are worth highlighting:
First, in its pure form,
performance management assumes an (arguably) overly rational and mechanistic
model of management. It draws on the idea of the control loop that you may have
met in earlier Open University modules. Central to PMS are the three elements
of setting objectives, reviewing performance and revising objectives and plans
based on the outcomes of the review. In essence, this is a simple learning
model: deviations from given objectives can be detected and corrected in the
light of experience.
Second, the model assumes that
organisations are unitary; that is, that clear organisational goals can be
specified and that these will be shared by others in the organisation. Little
allowance is made for the fact that different people and units may have their
own interests and interpret organisational goals in different ways, or for the
ambiguities and uncertainty of organisational life.
Third, as you will probably
notice, many features of the model are not new. At the heart of PMS are the
practices of individual performance appraisal, and the related aspects of
performance-related rewards and development. However, what the proponents of
PMS claim is new is the way in which these different aspects of managing people
are linked together to form an interlocking system, along with the way in which
units and individual performance are related to the overall strategy.