performance management
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Herman Aguinis
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at Denver
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Herman Aguinis
Prentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Performance Management in Context: Overview
Definition of Performance Management (PM) The Performance Management Contribution Disadvantages/Dangers of Poorly-implemented PM
systems Definition of Reward Systems Aims and role of PM Systems Characteristics of an Ideal PM system Integration with Other Human Resources and
Development Activities
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Performance Management: Definition
Continuous Process ofIdentifying performance of individuals and teamsMeasuring performance of individuals and teamsDeveloping performance of individuals and teams
andAligning performance with the strategic goals of the
organization
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
PM is NOT performance appraisal
• PM– Strategic business
considerations– Ongoing feedback– So employee can
improve performance
– Driven by line manager
• Performance appraisal– Assesses employee
• Strengths & • Weaknesses
– Once a year– Lacks ongoing
feedback– Driven by HR
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Contributions of PM For Employees
The definitions of job and success are clarifiedMotivation to perform is increasedSelf-esteem is increasedSelf-insight and development and enhanced
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Contributions of PMFor Managers
Supervisors’ views of performance are communicated more clearly
Managers gain insight about subordinatesThere is better and more timely differentiation
between good and poor performersEmployees become more competent
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Contributions of PM For Organization/HR Function
Organizational goals are made clearOrganizational change is facilitated Administrative actions are more fair and
appropriateThere is better protection from lawsuits
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Disadvantages/Dangers of Poorly-implemented PM Systems
for Employees
• Lowered self-esteem• Employee burnout and job dissatisfaction• Damaged relationships• Use of false or misleading information
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Disadvantages/Dangers of Poorly-implemented PM Systems
for Managers
• Increased turnover• Decreased motivation to perform• Unjustified demands on managers’ resources• Varying and unfair standards and ratings
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
• Wasted time and money• Unclear ratings system• Emerging biases• Increased risk of litigation
Disadvantages/Dangers of Poorly-implemented PM Systems
for Organization
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Reward Systems: Definition
Set of mechanisms for distributingTangible returns
andIntangible or relational returns
As part of an employment relationship
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Tangible returns
Cash compensationBase payCost-of-Living & Contingent PayIncentives (short- and long-term)
Benefits, such as Income ProtectionAllowancesWork/life focus
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Intangible returns
Relational returns, such asRecognition and statusEmployment securityChallenging work Learning opportunities
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Returns and Their Degree of Dependencyon the Performance Management System
Return Cost of Living Adjustment Income Protection Work/life Focus Allowances Relational Returns Base Pay Contingent Pay Short-term Incentives Long-term Incentives
Degree of Dependency• Low• Low• Moderate• Moderate• Moderate• Moderate• High• High• High
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Purposes of PM Systems:Overview
StrategicAdministrativeInformationalDevelopmentalOrganizational maintenanceDocumentation
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Strategic Purpose
Link employee behavior with organization’s goals
Communicate most crucial business strategic initiatives
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Administrative Purpose
Provide information for making decisions re:Salary adjustmentsPromotionsRetention or terminationRecognition of individual performanceLayoffs
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Informational Purpose
Communicate to Employees:ExpectationsWhat is importantHow they are doingHow to improve
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Developmental Purpose
Performance feedback/coachingIdentification of individual strengths and
weaknessesCauses of performance deficienciesTailor development of individual career path
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Organizational Maintenance Purpose
Plan effective workforceAssess future training needsEvaluate performance at organizational levelEvaluate effectiveness of HR interventions
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Documentational Purpose
Validate selection instrumentsDocument administrative decisionsHelp meet legal requirements
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Characteristics of an Ideal PM System
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Congruent with organizational strategy
• Consistent with organization’s strategy• Aligned with unit and organizational goals
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Thorough
• All employees are evaluated• All major job responsibilities are evaluated• Evaluations cover performance for entire
review period• Feedback is given on both positive and
negative performance
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Practical
• Available• Easy to use• Acceptable to decision makers• Benefits outweigh costs
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Meaningful
• Standards are important and relevant• System measures ONLY what employee can
control• Results have consequences. Evaluations
occur regularly and at appropriate times• System provides for continuing skill
development of evaluators
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Specific
Concrete and detailed guidance to employees • what’s expected • how to meet the expectations
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Identifies effective and ineffective performance
• Distinguish between effective and ineffective– Behaviors– Results
• Provide ability to identify employees with various levels of performance
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Reliable
• Consistent• Free of error• Inter-rater reliability
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Valid
• Relevant (measures what is important)• Not deficient (doesn’t measure unimportant
facets of job)• Not contaminated (only measures what the
employee can control)
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Acceptable and Fair
• Perception of Distributive Justice– Work performed evaluation received reward
• Perception of Procedural Justice– Fairness of procedures used to:
• Determine ratings• Link ratings to rewards
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Inclusive
• Represents concerns of all involved– When system is created, employees should help
with deciding• What should be measured• How it should be measured
– Employee should provide input on performance prior to evaluation meeting
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Open (No Secrets)
• Frequent, ongoing evaluations and feedback• 2-way communications in appraisal meeting• Clear standards, ongoing communication• Communications are factual, open, honest
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Correctable
• Recognizes that human judgment is fallible• Appeals process provided
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Standardized
• Ongoing training of managers to provide Consistent evaluations across– People– Time
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Ethical
• Supervisor suppresses self-interest• Supervisor rates only where he/she has
sufficient information about the performance dimension
• Supervisor respects employee privacy
Herman Aguinis, University of Colorado at DenverPrentice Hall, Inc. © 2006
Integration with other Human Resources and Development activities
PM provides information for:Development of training to meet organizational
needsWorkforce planningRecruitment and hiring decisionsDevelopment of compensation systems