Introduction
The main purpose of any business setting is to ensure that the targets of its establishment are fulfilled. There are certain principles and guidelines that companies are supposed to operate on. These are the principles that determine how far and strong a company thrives (Tovey & Uren, 2006). To accomplish the purpose of its establishment, a company aims at passing on such objectives to its employees to ensure that they work and perform accordingly. It is usually the desire of every management to make the employees fit for the particular job they do and it is upon the management to offer the employees with the necessary training to enhance their skills and work performance. Before an employee is integrated into the working environment of the company, they have to go through various tests in the form of oral and written interviews. It is after passing such initial tests that they undergo other trainings to ensure that they are at par with the activities of the organization. It is the working environment that will determine how much an employee will grow. There are different motivational measures that the organization may apply to ensure that the employees are working as per their requirements. An employee may however fail to work as required by the management even after employing measures to make them competent (Rao, 2005). The company is therefore forced to take necessary measures against them so as to block any hindrance to the growth of the company.
The Concept of 360 Degree Feedback within Performance Management
the 360 degrees concept is used to describe the overall feedback that an employer uses to gauge an employee (Ward, 1997). It was basically coined from the mathematical term which means that the employee is at the centre of other surroundings that make up his or her career. It is a concept that is used to gauge how functional an employee is not only to their employers but also to their customers and other stakeholders. Using this procedure, the management of the company will seek to find out on how effective an employee is in relation to the people that they affect. Humans are prone to make mistakes and also rely on information that may not be a clear reflection of the truth. However, using the vote of the majority, it is easier to know who is best and who is not. It is usually seen as the best method that can be used to reward employees who have been diligent in their work (Bracken & Timmreck, 2001). The report received is based on different kind of people that may not show bias or discrimination.
This method of assessment may however not be considered to be the best considering the different people that are involved. A person may not necessarily be found to be the best in all fields. This is the reason why there are different departments in the organization where people are organized according to their abilities. There is hence a certain kind of bias that may be recorded in the analysis. An employee that may be considered to be the best among customers may not necessarily be best to his colleagues. This is because of the different levels of relationship that they have towards each other. There are different characters and natures that may be displayed by individuals basing on their environments and the people they may encounter (Armstrong, 2000). Some people tend to relate better with strangers while others relate better with those that they are used to. It may hence be difficult to use such a strategy for such kind of assessment. We will look at both the positive and negative implications of using such a procedure to gauge employees.
The Positives and Negatives Of Such An Approach
Positive Implications
The advantage of using such a method is that it allows all the stakeholders of the company to participate in the grading and assessment of employees (Dearlove, 2006). The company is composed of different varieties of people who contribute to the running of the company. It is hence fair if their importance is recognized by letting them have a say on who performs well and who does not. There are certain kinds of mistakes that may be made if only the management of the company is allowed to gauge employees. Employees are at times found in a state of shock when they realize that they have been rated in a certain way. They fail to understand the procedure that has been used to gauge them which may affect their productivity in the company. Making the stakeholders of the company participate in such a procedure may increase their loyalty to the company. They will feel recognized and appreciated and thus drawing even closer to the company. Such kind of an analysis serves as a self analysis to the employees who will be able to know how they are looked at by different people (Bracken & Paul, 1993). From the various reports that they receive, they will be able to know where they are strong and where they are weak. They will therefore be encouraged to perform more in their abilities and perfect on their weaknesses.
Using the analysis, the company management will also be able to know the true character and nature of their employees. Feedback is received from their colleagues, clients, departmental managers and other leaders of the organization (Bracken, et al, 2001). They will therefore not be able to pretend about their natures. An employee that will record a good performance from different people will be true employees of the organization. From the various feedbacks received, the company will be able to know which field best suits a certain individual and which does not. An employee that will receive a bad report from the customers may not be considered to be the best for customer care desk. The same may however receive a good report from other assessments which will enable the management to place them in their rightful positions (Maylett, 2005). Through this procedure, discriminatory measures that may be used against certain employees will be minimized as a bigger group of people participate in the assessment process. Employees who may receive credit from the people they least though of will be motivated into higher productivity.
Negative Implications
The 360 degrees feedback may not be considered as the best method of assessing employees due to some drawbacks that it has (Armstrong, 2000). It has been noted that it is not a procedure that will motivate employees into high productivity. This is because some people that may not have a clear understanding of how they operate may be used to gauge them. This will hence give a biased report about them that will reduce their working morale. This applies both to those who will receive positive feedback and those that may receive negative feedback. Those who receive positive feedback may feel content about their performance and hence not applying measures that will improve on their performance. Some employees may not be in good terms with their colleagues and even some of their customers and managers. Such a procedure may hence be used against them (Caputo, & Roch, 2009). They may intentionally give them poor grades with the aim of destroying their career life or denying them the promotion that they require.
Employees who may realize such kind of unfairness being used on them may not be motivated to perform well. In using such kind of procedure, there may be a lot of loopholes on the criteria that was used to gauge the employees. The criteria that will be used by the customers of the company will be different from that which will be used by their colleagues and managers. This implies that there will be varying reports which will not be a clear reflection of the employee. People have different expectations from people and they will use the expectation they have towards them even if they have nothing to do with their careers to gauge them (Kandula, 2006). This may prove to be disastrous to the employees who may be having certain grudges with their colleagues and customers. The information that may be received from this procedure will hence not be 100 percent reliable due to such drawbacks.
How a Well Designed Performance Management System Might Be Used To Identify and Manage Aspects of Unsatisfactory Performance in An Organization
Performance is an important aspect of company management that can be used to ascertain whether employees are working as per the objectives of the company or not. There are different systems that are used by different organizations to gauge the performance of their employees (Schwartz, 2001). There are no limitations to the number of such systems that may be used as long as they are giving the required results. The system used basically depends on the size of the organization and what they are basically involved in. It is however necessary for every organization to have such an assessment system that will enable them to know whether they are working towards fulfilling their objectives or not (Shaw, 1995). The company will be able to identify areas in the organization that need to be changed for the company to perform better. For instance it may not be easy to know on a corporate basis the employees that are performing well and those that are not doing their best (Wilson, 2005). The management has to carry out a critical observation on the performance of every department in the organization as well as the individual profiles of employees.
The reason for a poor performance of the organization may be due to a certain specific department. It may hence not be necessary for the company to completely change the entire management system but to make the changes in the department (Werner & DeSimone, 2009). Before the company leadership makes any decisions or changes in the organization, they need to identify where the root cause of the problem is. This will prevent them from applying corrective measures that may be more disastrous to the company. A performance management system will ensure that the activities of the company are put under check on a regular basis and hence taking corrective measures before it is too late (Jackson, 2005). A company that does not invest in a performance management system is likely to take for granted some of the occurrences in the company which may lead to grater losses (Armstrong, 2000). It is only through a sensitive management performance system that the management will be able to recognize the loopholes that may be a major drawback to the company.
The Role of a Performance Management System
The role of a performance management system is to scrutinize the different areas of the organization that are likely to boost and reduce the performance of the company. As a company goes through different faces, there are different situations that will either impact positively or negatively on the company. The company may not always be prepared for this faces considering the situations and circumstances through which they may happen (Armstrong, 2006). There are however some occurrences that can be predicted early enough for the company to take necessary action. An effective performance management system has the role of exposing such possibilities so that the company is not caught unawares.
There are seasons when there is a boom in the market; the company is hence obliged to engage in high productivity to utilize the boom by making more profits. There are also seasons when there is a recession which causes poor performance of the products. During this time, it is needless for the company to engage in quantity production (English, et al, 2009). A company will show alertness to the different faces according to the ability of the performance management system that they use.
A performance management system is also an important tool that can be used to gauge the rate at which an organization is growing. This is important to the management which will know what to do to contain the growth (Mullins, 2007). There is usually an expected rate that the company desires to grow at. If the rate is not being achieved then, it will be clear that there are certain things that are not working for them. The company will be able to identify such areas with the aim of taking the necessary action. As the company grows, it is usually realized that many things also have to be changed. The management will not have to rely on a particular system when change is inevitable. There is therefore the need for it to adapt to the changes that are happening around by employing an effective system. There may be a need for more facilities to be installed into the company as well as investing in employee training (Stenzel, 2003). Employees are to be encouraged to adapt to the changes that are happening in the organization. A performance management system will enable the company to sensitize its employees against certain practices that could be costing on its performance. The management will be able to effectively put the situation under check by adopting effective management styles.
There are different procedures that may be used to measure the performance of a company. The most commonly used are company registers which show the arrival and departure time of employees. A company usually sets up standards that need to be followed by employees, failure of which will lead to poor performance. Workers will be graded in terms of them fulfilling the objectives of the company by living up to such standards (Warner, 2002). There are also certain records that pertain to the daily production of the individual employees which can be measured over a long period of time to check on the improvement trend. Individual performance of employees will reflect on the general performance of the company. It will hence be necessary for the company to deal with the employees on a personal level so that they achieve the general targets that they desire (Hale & Whitlam, 2000). The same will also be reflected on the performance of different departments and facilitating the necessary changes. As the company uses the system, they will be able to take up effective measures that will be fair and necessary to ensure they survive all the seasons of its operations.
Conclusion
Apart from the goals and targets that are frequently laid down by the company, there is a need for a performance management system that will tell them whether they are moving towards fulfilling such goals or not. At times the company may rely on certain assumptions that are being displayed by the company and not really taking the necessary steps to know whether their objectives are being fulfilled or not (Grote, 1996). Most leaders are usually quick to lay down targets that they desire to be achieved by their subordinates and fail to understand the importance of empowering them to perform. In most cases, employees will be motivated to perform better if they see the determination that their leaders have in practicing what they encourage them to do. A manager who is not recording good performance may kill the morale of even the best performing employees. They are hence required to have an impact on their employees by adapting efficient management skills.
Reference List
Armstrong, M., (2000). Performance management: key strategies and practical guidelines. New York: Kogan Page Publishers.
Armstrong, M., (2000). Strategic human resource management: a guide to action. New York: Kogan Page Publishers,
Armstrong, M., (2005), Managing performance: performance management in action. New York: CIPD Publishing,
Armstrong, M., (2006). A handbook of human resource management practice, New York: Kogan Page Publishers.
Bracken, D., & Timmreck, C., (2001). Guidelines for multi source feedback when used for decision making. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bracken, D., and Paul, K., (1993). The effects of scale type and demographics on upward feedback. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Society Annual Conference, May, San Francisco, CAAtkins, P., & Wood, R.
Bracken, D., et al. (2001). The handbook of multisource feedback. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Caputo, P., & Roch, S., (2009). Rating formats and perceptions of performance appraisal fairness. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, April, New Orleans, LA.
Dearlove, H., (2006). The ultimate book of business thinking. New Delhi: Wiley India Pvt. Ltd.
English, A., et al. (2009). Rating scale label effects on leniency bias in 360-degree feedback. Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, April, New Orleans, LA.
Grote, R., (1996). The complete guide to performance appraisal. New York: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
Hale, R. & Whitlam P., (2000). Powering up performance management: an integrated approach to getting the best from your people. London: Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Jackson, M., (2005). Systems approaches to management. New York: Kluwer Academic.
Kandula, (2006), Performance Management. New York: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Maylett, T., (2005). The Relationship Of Multi-rater Feedback To Traditional Performance Appraisal. Doctoral Dissertation, Pepperdine University, Los Angeles, California.
Mullins, L,. (2007). Management and organisational behaviour. California: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
Rao, V., (2005). The power of 360 degree feedback: maximizing managerial and leadership effectiveness. California: SAGE.
Schwartz, A., (2001). Performance Management: Work and Development. California: Andrew E Schwartz.
Shaw, D., (1995). Performance measurement, management, and appraisal sourcebook. Amherst, Mass: Human Resource Development Press.
Stenzel, C., (2003). From cost to performance management: a blueprint for organizational development. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Tovey, M. & Uren, M., (2006). Managing performance improvement. Prentice Hall: Australia.
Ward, P., (1997). 360-degree feedback. California: CIPD Publishing.
Warner, J., (2002). Janus Performance Management System Volume with CD. New York: Human Resource Development,
Werner, J. & DeSimone, R., (2009). Human resource development. Harcourt College Publishers, Orlando, Florida.
Wilson, J., (2005). Human resource development: learning & training for individuals & organizations. New York: Kogan Page Publishers.